Court Opinion

ID: 9805875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 18:21:40.995017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:49:28.734730
License: Public Domain

Tom, J.E,
concurs in a separate memorandum as follows: It is beyond dispute that the evidence against defendant was sufficient to support his conviction and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The only question is whether defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause were infringed by the introduction of hearsay testimony. Because the hearsay testimony was received to avoid misleading the jury and to complete the narrative in order to deter jury speculation, it does not implicate the right of confrontation. In any event, the evidence was merely cumulative, and any error in its admission was harmless.
*519Testimony was received from eight police officers and their sergeant, all of whom were members of the 30th Precinct Conditions Team assigned to monitor activity in the vicinity of 147th Street between Amsterdam Avenue and Broadway in Manhattan. On the date of his arrest, defendant was observed, at approximately 4:40 a.m., exiting a building and walking to a nearby chainlink fence, where he lifted up some mesh material, bent down, and placed something inside the fence. Defendant was then observed on the corner of 147th Street and Amsterdam Avenue in the company of codefendant Edgar Blanco when a third man, codefendant Guny Nunez, drove up. The three were seen standing over a backpack placed on the pavement.
After the three men separated, members of the team saw defendant direct five or more persons toward the location of the chainlink fence, where Blanco reached into the fence and retrieved something very small and gave one to each person, who in turn gave something to Blanco. Over a six-hour period, officers stopped a number of apparent buyers but found no drugs in their possession. Sergeant Nicholson testified that when he learned from two such persons that they had purchased drugs and swallowed them before police could intervene, he directed the team to move in right away on the next buy, before the individuals got a chance to discard the narcotics. When the next buyer, Jose Gomez, was observed making a purchase, the team surrounded the three suspects and Gomez, placing them under arrest. Gomez was found to be in possession of five small Ziploc bags containing what was later identified as crack cocaine. Also arrested was Ronald White, who was found to be carrying a crack pipe and a metal push rod (used to insert the crack into the pipe). The arresting officer believed the pipe had just been smoked; however, no drugs were recovered from White’s person.
The team recovered $80 from Blanco, as well as $551 from Nunez and the backpack in which a bag containing just under 2.5 grams of unprocessed crack cocaine was found. After everyone was placed under arrest, Nicholson and Valerio searched the fence in the vicinity of where defendant initially placed something and recovered a Ziploc bag containing crack.
The sergeant’s testimony was followed by that of Officer Valerio, who assisted the sergeant in intercepting suspected buyers. The officer explained that no drugs were recovered from several individuals who were stopped. The officer stated that when he directed one of the individuals to open his mouth, a Ziploc bag could be seen “on the roof of his mouth.” The individual then immediately closed his mouth and swallowed it.
*520Defendant contends that his right to confront witnesses was abridged when the police sergeant was permitted to testify that two persons suspected of buying drugs told him that “they had purchased narcotics” and “they had swallowed the drugs.” The People assert that the sergeant’s testimony merely completed the narrative by explaining why, when team members stopped and searched persons observed to be interacting with defendant and engaging in transactions with Blanco, no drugs were found, and why the police then decided to converge on the suspected sellers immediately after they engaged in the transaction with Gomez.
It is settled that even evidence that is testimonial in nature may be used “for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted” (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 59-60 n 9 [2004]), such as completing the narrative, explaining police actions, and preventing jury speculation (see Tennessee v Street, 471 US 409 [1985] [accomplice’s confession properly received in rebuttal]; People v DeJesus, 105 AD3d 476 [1st Dept 2013], lv granted 22 NY3d 1198 [2014] [evidence concerning course of police investigation]). Here, the sergeant’s testimony regarding what he learned from suspected purchasers served to explain why the police decided to immediately effect the arrest of the sellers when Gomez made his purchase, and not earlier when prior suspects were stopped, thus deterring speculation that the surveillance team was merely harassing innocent passersby and bystanders. In any event, the identical explanation for the lack of drugs found on persons apparently engaging in drug transactions was adduced from Officer Valerio. His account of observing a Ziploc bag being swallowed by a suspected purchaser is subject to only one interpretation — that the suspect was disposing of recently acquired narcotics. Thus, the hearsay testimony received from the sergeant — that two persons he intercepted said that “they had purchased narcotics” and “they had swallowed the drugs” — which the majority finds so prejudicial, did no more than give expression to the obvious conclusion to be deduced from Officer Valerio’s first-hand account — that the purchasers were disposing of the Ziploc bags in some expedient manner before police could intercept them, thereby prompting the surveillance team to immediately apprehend the sellers in the course of the next transaction.
The sergeant’s testimony is not rendered prejudicial merely because it does not support defendant’s theory that there were no drug sales taking place. The worst that may be said is that given Officer Valerio’s testimony, the sergeant’s testimony was cumulative; thus, any error in its admission was harmless (see *521People v Rawlins, 37 AD3d 183, 184-185 [1st Dept 2007], affd 10 NY3d 136 [2008], cert denied 557 US 934 [2009]). The sergeant’s testimony was “coupled with proper limiting instructions” (People v Resek, 3 NY3d 385, 389 [2004]) and served to complete the narrative. It was relevant to both the offense (cf. People v Green, 35 NY2d 437 [1974] [evidence of previous unrelated drug complaint irrelevant and prejudicial]) and a contested issue in the case (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241 [1987] [previous drug crimes admissible to establish intent]), and was not prejudicial (cf. People v Cook, 42 NY2d 204, 208 [1977] [error to allow testimony regarding uncharged rape irrelevant to burglary charge but error was harmless]).
Accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed.