Cortez Conviction, Court of Appeals

8/13/2019 Cortez Conviction, Court of Appeals

1/33

=================================================================Thi s memor andum i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or epubl i cat i on i n the New Yor k Repor t s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 225The Peopl e &c. , Respondent , v.Paul Cor t ez,

Appel l ant .

Mar c Fer ni ch, f or appel l ant .Davi d M. Cohn, f or r espondent .Nat i onal Associ at i on of Cr i mi nal Def ense Lawyer s et

al . , ami ci cur i ae.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Or der af f i r med. Def endant r ai ses no er r or war r ant i ng a r ever salof hi s convi ct i on. Chi ef J udge Li ppman and J udges Gr af f eo, Read,

Smi t h, Pi got t and Abdus- Sal aam concur . Chi ef J udge Li ppmanconcur s i n an opi ni on i n whi ch J udges Gr af f eo and Smi t h concurand J udge Abdus- Sal aam concur s i n an opi ni on i n whi ch J udges Readand Pi got t concur . J udge Ri ver a t ook no par t .

Deci ded J anuar y 21, 2014


2/33

Peopl e v Cor t ez ( Paul )

No. 225

LI PPMAN, Chi ef J udge ( concur r i ng) :

Def endant st ands convi ct ed upon a j ur y ver di ct of

mur der i ng Cather i ne Woods. At t r i al , t her e was evi dence t hat he

had f el t hi msel f t o be r omant i cal l y i nvol ved wi t h Ms. Woods, but

t hat af t er a t i me Ms. Woods made i t cl ear t hat she di d not want

t hei r r el at i onshi p, such as i t was, t o cont i nue. Ther e was al so

evi dence t hat def endant expr essed angui sh over hi s r ej ect i on by

Ms. Woods, bot h to acquai nt ances and i n hi s per sonal j our nal s,

and t hat , at or ar ound t he t i me Ms. Woods f i nal l y t ur ned hi m

away, he t el ephoned her wi t h ext r aor di nary f r equency. 1 Ms. Woods

was mur dered on t he eveni ng of November 27, 2005 - - a l i t t l e over

a mont h af t er br eaki ng wi t h def endant - - i n t he East 86t h St r eet

apar t ment she shar ed wi t h her l ong- t i me boyf r i end Davi d Haughn.

Haughn t est i f i ed t hat on r et ur ni ng t o the apar t ment j ust bef or e

7: 00 p. m. , af t er an absence of about an hour , he f ound Ms. Woods

on t he bedr oom f l oor l yi ng i n a pool of bl ood. Ther e was

f orensi c evi dence t hat Ms. Woods had been st abbed r epeat edl y

about t he neck, and t hat t he bedr oom wal l s wer e spat t er ed wi t h

1Tel ephone r ecor ds r ef l ect ed 57 such phone cal l s on Oct ober19, 2005 and 47 on Oct ober 25, 2005.

- 1 -


3/33

- 2 - No. 225

her bl ood. Wi t hi n a gr oup of wal l st ai ns appear i ng t o a Cr i me

Scene Uni t Detect i ve t o have been pr oduced by t he i mpr essi on of a

bl oodi ed hand - - a so- cal l ed "hand t r ansf er " pr i nt - - a l at ent

f i nger pr i nt was di scover ed. The Peopl e' s f or ensi c exper t s

t est i f i ed t hat , af t er enhancement and anal ysi s, t he pr i nt had

been determi ned t o mat ch t hat pr oduced by def endant ' s l ef t i ndex

f i nger . Def endant ' s cel l phone r ecor ds l i st some 14 cal l s to Ms.

Woods on t he day of t he homi ci de and ther e was pr oof t hat of

t hese, sever al , made bet ween 5: 27 p. m. and 6: 33 p. m. , or i gi nated

f r om t he vi ci ni t y of t he vi cti m' s East 86t h r esi dence. Ear l i er

cal l s f r om t he same cel l phone t r aced t he user ' s pr ogr ess f r om

t he nei ghborhood i n whi ch def endant l i ved t oward t he mur der si t e.

Def endant acknowl edges t hat t he t r i al evi dence, vi ewed

as i t must be on appeal , i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o the

Peopl e, was suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he mur der ver di ct . Hi s cl ai m

t o appel l at e r el i ef i s pr emi sed i nst ead upon t wo al l eged def ect s

i n t he under l yi ng pr oceedi ngs. He ar gues f i r st , t hat he was

i nef f ect i vel y r epr esent ed at t r i al because one of hi s at t or neys

had per sonal i nt er est s t hat conf l i ct ed wi t h her pr of essi onal

obl i gat i ons t o hi m, and second, t hat t he r ecei pt i n evi dence of

ent r i es f r om hi s j our nal s, dat i ng f r om bet ween si x and t hr ee

years bef ore Ms. Woods' murder , document i ng never - act ed- upon

mi sogyni st i c t hought s about t wo f or mer gi r l f r i ends, was i n er r or ,

because hi s pr i or bad t hought s wer e not pr oper l y rel evant t o

pr ovi ng hi s commi ssi on of t he cr i me char ged. These argument s

- 2 -


4/33

- 3 - No. 225

wer e rej ected by t he Appel l at e Di vi si on ( 85 AD3d 409, 410- 411

[ 2011] ) and ar e now bef or e us on t hi s f ur t her appeal , pur suant t o

l eave gr ant ed by a J udge of t hi s Cour t ( 19 NY3d 972 [ 2012] ) . We

concl ude, t hat whi l e def endant ' s cont ent i ons ar e subst ant i al and

possess a f ai r measur e of mer i t , t hey do not i n t he end make out

a r i ght t o r el i ef f r om t he j udgment of convi ct i on.

I .

Def endant was repr esent ed at t r i al by two at t orneys;

l ead counsel Laur a Mi r anda, Esq. was second- seat ed by an at t orney

( her ei naf t er "co- counsel ") r et ai ned f or her pur por t ed exper t i se

i n deal i ng wi t h f or ensi c evi dence, t he most cr uci al component of

t he Peopl e' s case. Bef or e t he t r i al began, however , i t was

di scl osed t hat co- counsel had been i ndi ct ed by a New Yor k Count y

Gr and J ur y; she was al l eged t o have smuggl ed dr ugs t o a cl i ent i n

pr i son. I nasmuch, t hen, as co- counsel f aced pr osecut i on by t he

Of f i ce of t he New Yor k Count y Di st r i ct At t or ney, t he same of f i ce

t hat was concur r ent l y pr osecut i ng her cl i ent , Mr . Cor t ez, t her e

was at l east a pot ent i al conf l i ct of i nt er est ; i t was ent i r el y

pl ausi bl e t hat co- counsel ' s nat ur al concer n over how she woul d be

deal t wi t h i n her own case woul d i nhi bi t t he vi gor of her

opposi t i on t o her pr osecut or ' s case agai nst her cl i ent . A

Gomber g hear i ng was t hus hel d f or t he pur pose of ascer t ai ni ng on

t he recor d t hat def endant was knowi ngl y el ect i ng to cont i nue wi t h

co- counsel as hi s at t or ney not wi t hst andi ng any conf l i ct t hat her

pr osecut i on mi ght pose to her si ngl e- mi nded advocacy on hi s

- 3 -


5/33

- 4 - No. 225

behal f ( see Peopl e v Gomber g, 38 NY2d 307 [ 1975] ) .

At t he hear i ng, t he t r i al court f i rst el i ci t ed f rom

def endant t hat l ead counsel had spoken wi t h hi m about " [ co-

counsel ' s] pendi ng mat t er . " The cour t t hen acknowl edged "an

ar gument " t hat co- counsel had a conf l i ct of i nt er est - - "t hat she

mi ght , f or some r eason, be more i nt erest ed i n her own mat t er t han

[ t hat of def endant ] " - - but added t hat she was "not qui t e sur e

[ she saw] i t f act ual l y, f r ankl y. " Nonet hel ess, t he cour t sai d

i t was i mpor t ant f or def endant t o under st and t hat i f co- counsel

was convi ct ed, she coul d l ose her l i cense t o pr act i ce l aw. The

i nqui r y concl uded wi t h t he cour t aski ng def endant t o make

expl i ci t t hat he under st ood what was "goi ng on" and t hat he

wi shed t o proceed wi t h co- counsel anyway. Def endant r esponded,

"Yes. I under st and that . And she has not compr omi sed t hi s case on

account of her own, " wher eupon t he t r i al cour t af f i r mat i vel y

ended t he i nqui r y, i ndi cat i ng t hat i t woul d not be necessary f or

def endant t o go i nt o f ur t her det ai l about hi s under st andi ng of

what was "goi ng on. " Def endant cont ends t hat hi s wai ver of co-

counsel ' s conf l i ct i s not adequat el y made out by thi s col l oquy.

Whi l e t he const i t ut i onal r i ght of a cr i mi nal def endant

t o ef f ecti ve r epr esent at i on ent ai l s the r i ght t o conf l i ct- f r ee

r epr esent at i on ( see Wood v Geor gi a, 450 US 261, 271 [ 1981] ;

Peopl e v Or t i z, 76 NY2d 652, 655- 656 [ 1990] ) , most , but not al l ,

at t orney conf l i ct s may be wai ved so as t o per mi t cont i nued

r epr esent at i on by t he def endant ' s at t or ney of choi ce ( see Peopl e

- 4 -


6/33

- 5 - No. 225

v Carncr oss, 14 NY3d 319, 327- 330 [ 2010] ) . But wai ver s,

par t i cul ar l y of f undament al const i t ut i onal ent i t l ement s, t o be

val i d, must be demonst r abl y knowi ng, i nt el l i gent and vol unt ar y

( Edwards v Ar i zona, 451 US 477, 482 [ 1981] ; J ohnson v Zerbst , 304

US 458, 464 [ 1938] ) ; t her e must be a recor d suf f i ci ent t o

overcome t he pr esumpt i on agai nst t hem. Def endant ' s at t orney

conf l i ct wai ver t hen, may not be deemed ef f ect i ve unl ess t he

r ecord unambi guousl y per mi t s t he i nf er ence t hat he knowi ngl y,

i nt el l i gent l y and vol unt ar i l y r el i nqui shed hi s const i t ut i onal

r i ght t o uni mpai r ed, i . e. , conf l i ct - f r ee, assi stance of counsel .

Not wi t hst andi ng t hei r pot ent i al l y pi vot al i mpor t ance,

we have r esi st ed a uni f or m j udi ci al cat echi sm f or t he t aki ng of

at t orney conf l i ct wai ver s ( see Peopl e v Caban, 70 NY2d 695, 697

[ 1987] ; Peopl e v Ll oyd, 51 NY2d 107, 112 [ 1980] ) , pr ef er r i ng t o

al l ow t r i al j udges t o t ai l or t he i nqui r y t o t he par t i cul ar

ci r cumst ances t o whi ch t he wai ver r el at es. I n Gomberg we

r equi r ed onl y t hat t he cour t be "sat i sf i ed" t hat t he wai ver was

i nf or med ( 38 NY2d at 313) ; t he act ual t ask of i nf or mi ng t he

def endant as t o t he conf l i ct , we i ndi cat ed, was t he et hi cal and

r epr esent at i onal obl i gat i on of counsel ( i d. at 314) . I ndeed,

Gomberg may be r ead t o al l ow a t r i al j udge, i n assessi ng whether

a pur por t ed wai ver was adequatel y i nf or med, t o rel y, near l y

i mpl i ci t l y, upon counsel ' s assur ance t hat t he cl i ent has been

appr opr i at el y advi sed of t he conf l i ct and i t s r i sks ( i d. ) . A

di f f er ent appr oach - - one i nvol vi ng a mor e pr obi ng i nqui r y by t he

- 5 -


7/33

- 6 - No. 225

cour t - - we sai d, r i sked i nt r udi ng upon t he at t or ney- cl i ent

r el at i onshi p ( i d. at 313) .

Gomberg, i t appear s, may have over st at ed t he ext ent t o

whi ch a cour t may r el y upon t he assur ance of a possi bl y

conf l i ct ed at t or ney i n j udgi ng whet her a def endant ' s el ect i on t o

cont i nue wi t h t hat at t orney was i nf ormed. Some f our year s af t er

Gomber g, i n Peopl e v Macer ol a ( 47 NY2d 257 [ 1979] ) , we emphasi zed

t hat t he Cour t ' s obl i gat i on i n r espondi ng t o a possi bl e at t or ney

conf l i ct was i ndependent of t hat of counsel , and woul d be met

"[ o] nl y af t er suf f i ci ent admoni t i on by t he t r i al cour t of t he

pot ent i al pi t f al l s" posed by t he conf l i ct ( i d. at 263) . And, i n

Peopl e v Baf f i ( 49 NY2d 820, 822 [ 1980] ) we rei t er ated t hat

" [ a] l t hough t he t r i al cour t may pl ace some r el i ance on t he

st at ement by counsel t hat he has i nf or med hi s cl i ent s of t he

pi t f al l s of j oi nt r epr esent at i on and got t en t hei r consent ( Peopl e

v Gomber g, 38 NY2d 307) , such a st at ement al one does not r el i eve

t he t r i al cour t of t he obl i gat i on ' i ndependent of t he at t or ney' s

obl i gat i on' ( Peopl e v Macer ol a, 47 NY2d 257, 263) t o pr obe t he

def endant s' awareness of t he r i sks i n t he manner suggest ed by our

di scussi on i n Macer ol a" ( i d. at 822) . Mor e r ecent l y, i n Peopl e v

Sol omon ( 20 NY3d 91 [ 2012] ) , we f ound t he r ecord i nsuf f i ci ent t o

document a val i d at t orney conf l i ct wai ver wher e, al t hough counsel

r epr esent ed t hat she had di scussed her conf l i ct wi t h t he

def endant ( i d. at 94) , t he nat ur e of t he conf l i ct was "not even"

made a mat t er of r ecor d by t he cour t ( i d. at 95) .

- 6 -


8/33

- 7 - No. 225

Def endant and ami ci poi nt out t hat f eder al cases have

under st ood i nqui r y respect i ng a possi bl e at t or ney conf l i ct and

t he val i di t y of a def endant ' s el ect i on t o wai ve i t , t o be,

cent r al l y, a j udi ci al f unct i on ( see e. g. Uni t ed St at es v Levy,

25 F3d 146, 158 [1994] ) , and t hat t he wi del y empl oyed pr ot ocol

f or passi ng upon at t or ney conf l i ct wai ver s set f or t h i n Uni t ed

St at es v Cur ci o ( 680 F2d 881, 888- 890 [ 1982] ) cont empl at es a

si gni f i cant l y mor e par t i cul ar and sear chi ng j udi ci al i nqui r y

t han t hat descr i bed by Gomber g - - one est abl i shi ng on t he

r ecor d t hat t he cour t has

"( 1) advi se[ d] t he def endant of hi s r i ght t oconf l i ct- f r ee r epr esent at i on, ( 2)i nst r uct [ ed] t he def endant as t o t he danger sar i s i ng f rom t he part i cul ar conf l i ct , ( 3)per mi t t [ ed] t he def endant t o conf er wi t h hi schosen counsel , ( 4) encour ag[ ed] t hedef endant t o seek advi ce f r om i ndependentcounsel , ( 5) al l ow[ ed] a r easonabl e t i me f ort he def endant t o make hi s deci si on, and ( 6)det er mi n[ ed] , pr ef er abl y by means of

quest i ons t hat ar e l i kel y t o be answer ed i nnarr at i ve f orm, whet her t he def endantunder st ands t he r i sks and f r eel y chooses t or un t hem"

( Uni t ed Stat es v Rodr i guez ( 968 F2d 130, 138- 139 [ 2d Ci r 1992]

[ summar i zi ng t he Cur ci o pr ot ocol ] ) .

Whi l e we do not adopt or r equi r e t he Cur ci o i nqui r y and

do not vi ew each of i t s si x el ement s as i nvar i abl y i ndi spensabl e

t o a val i d conf l i ct wai ver , t he pr ot ocol appear s wel l - desi gned t o

creat e a r ecor d f r om whi ch t he val i di t y of a conf l i ct wai ver , or

t he l ack t her eof , may be r eadi l y di scer ned. I t i s an appr oach

t hat has pr oved workabl e ( see e. g. Uni t ed Stat es v Gr aham, 493

- 7 -


9/33


10/33

- 9 - No. 225

cour t i t sel f was unabl e cl ear l y t o di scer n. Whi l e t he Peopl e

emphasi ze def endant ' s decl ar at i on that co- counsel "has not

compr omi sed t hi s case on account of her own, " t hat bare,

unel aborat ed st at ement 3 mani f est l y does not demonst r ate

def endant ' s awar eness t hat co- counsel ' s cont i nued r epr esent at i on

ent ai l ed a pr ospect i ve r i sk t hat hi s def ense t o t he char ge of

murder coul d be compromi sed by hi s at t orney' s per sonal

vul ner abi l i t y t o hi s pr osecut or .

The cour t ' s near compl et e r el i ance upon at t or ney

Mi r anda t o expl ai n co- counsel ' s conf l i ct and i t s possi bl e

r ami f i cat i ons t o def endant , was nei t her consonant wi t h our post -

Gomber g conf l i ct wai ver j ur i spr udence, nor pr udent under t he

ci r cumst ances. Ms. Mi r anda, al t hough not l abor i ng under co-

counsel ' s conf l i ct , had r el i ed upon co- counsel t o cover cri t i cal

i ssues f or t he def ense, most not abl y those i nvol vi ng t he

pr osecut i on' s pot ent f or ensi c pr oof . She woul d nat ur al l y have

been r el uct ant t o di spense wi t h co- counsel ' s assi st ance mi d-

t r i al . 4 And, havi ng her sel f j ust been hel d i n cont empt by t he

cour t f or del ayi ng t he t r i al , woul d not have been anxi ous t o

i ncur addi t i onal j udi ci al di spl easur e by appr i si ng her cl i ent i n

3The cour t , perhaps r el yi ng upon Gomberg' s caut i on agai nst

j udi ci al i nt r usi on upon t he at t or ney- cl i ent r el at i on, made i tpl ai n t hat she di d not want def endant t o pl ace upon t he r ecordt he sor t of nar r at i ve account of t he conf l i ct and i t s possi bl e

adver se consequence t hat i s pr ef er r ed under Cur ci o.

4The Gomberg i nqui r y was conduct ed on t he second day ofdef endant ' s t r i al .

- 9 -


11/33

- 10 - No. 225

such a way as t o make t he subst i t ut i on of co- counsel and

addi t i onal del ay, or her i mmedi at e assumpt i on of r epr esent at i onal

r esponsi bi l i t i es f or whi ch she was unpr epar ed, l i kel y. The

possi bi l i t y t hat an at t or ney i n her posi t i on woul d under st at e t he

r i sks ent ai l ed by co- counsel ' s cont i nued r epr esent at i on was not

negl i gi bl e. Ther e i s, i n shor t , ser i ous reason t o doubt whet her

such advi ce as she may have gi ven def endant on t he subj ect of co-

counsel ' s conf l i ct was t he pr oduct of i ndependent and

di si nt er est ed pr of essi onal j udgment .

Def endant ar gues t hat , i f hi s at t or ney conf l i ct wai ver

was i nval i d, t here must be a reversal because an unwai ved

at t or ney conf l i ct of any sor t f unct i ons t o depr i ve a def endant of

t he r i ght t o make an i nf or med choi ce as t o who wi l l r epr esent hi m

and t hus i nt r oduces i nt o t he basi c st r uct ur e of a cr i mi nal t r i al

a f l aw wi t h i ncal cul abl e, pot ent i al l y hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al

sequel l ae. We, however , have di scer ned a meani ngf ul di st i nct i on

bet ween conf l i ct s t hat ar e act ual and t hose t hat onl y pot ent i al l y

i mpai r an at t or ney' s di schar ge of her pr of essi onal obl i gat i ons i n

a par t i cul ar mat t er . I f f al l i ng wi t hi n t he f or mer cat egor y, an

unwai ved conf l i ct r equi r es r ever sal ( see Peopl e v Sol omon, 20

NY3d at 97) , but i f wi t hi n t he l at t er , r el i ef , we have hel d,

depends upon a showi ng by t he def endant t hat t he conf l i ct

"oper ated on" t he def ense ( see i d. ; and see Peopl e v Sanchez, 21

NY3d 216, 223 [ 2013] ; Peopl e v Enni s, 11 NY3d 403 [ 2008] ; Peopl e

v Konst ant i ni des, 14 NY3d 1, 10 [ 2009] ) .

- 10 -


12/33

- 11 - No. 225

We have not vi ewed an at t or ney conf l i ct as " act ual " f or

pur poses of deci di ng whet her a def endant has r ecei ved ef f ect i ve

r epr esent at i on, except where t he at t orney may be underst ood t o

have di vi ded and i ncompat i bl e l oyal t i es wi t hi n t he same mat t er

necessar i l y pr ecl usi ve of si ngl e- mi nded advocacy ( see e. g.

Sol omon, supr a; Peopl e v Prescot t , 21 NY3d 925 [ 2013] ) . Her e,

def endant ' s ar gument t hat co- counsel was act ual l y conf l i ct ed,

si nce at ever y tur n i n t he t r i al she mi ght nat ur al l y have been

appr ehensi ve as t o whet her f ul l - t hr ot t l e advocacy on def endant ' s

behal f r i sked ant agoni zi ng the pr osecut or upon whose f avor abl e

di scr et i on her own pendi ng mat t er woul d l i kel y depend, whi l e

per haps accur at el y descri bi ng t he r i sk, i s not l egal l y vi abl e

af t er our deci si on i n Konst ant i ni des ( supr a; see al so Peopl e v

Townsl ey, 20 NY3d 294, 299- 301 [ 2012] ) . Ther e, we hel d t hat a

pr osecut or ' s al l egat i ons r espect i ng def ense counsel ' s cr i mi nal

i nvol vement , even wi t h r espect t o the ver y mat t er s wi t h whi ch t he

r epr esent at i on was concer ned, r ai sed onl y a pot ent i al conf l i ct

( 14 NY3d at 13- 14; but see Konst ant i ni des v Gr i f f i n, No.

10- CV- 05999, 2011 WL 3040383 [ ED NY J ul y 25, 2011] ) .

Konst ant i ni des' second- seat ed counsel was accused by t he

pr osecut or of subor ni ng per j ur y i n t he case on t r i al , but nei t her

t hat al l egat i on nor t he concomi t ant pr ospect t hat t he at t or ney

woul d be cal l ed as a t r i al wi t ness suf f i ced t o r el i eve

Konst ant i ni des of t he bur den t o show, as a condi t i on of r el i ef ,

t hat t he conf l i ct r ai sed by t he pr osecut or ' s al l egat i ons act ual l y

- 11 -


13/33

- 12 - No. 225

oper ated on hi s def ense ( 14 NY3d at 13- 14) . The pr esent f act s

ar e si gni f i cant l y l ess compel l i ng. Co- counsel ' s al l eged

wr ongdoi ng, unl i ke t hat of Konst ant i ni des' at t or ney, was

f act ual l y unr el at ed t o her cl i ent ' s case and r ai sed no

possi bi l i t y of her bei ng cal l ed t o gi ve t est i mony adver se t o

def endant ' s i nt er est s.

I f , as our pr ecedent s di ct at e, def endant cannot obt ai n

r el i ef pr emi sed on co- counsel ' s unwai ved conf l i ct unl ess he can

show t hat t he conf l i ct oper at ed on t he def ense, i t i s evi dent

t hat he cannot now pr evai l . Whi l e he f aul t s co- counsel ' s conduct

of t hose port i ons of t he def ense wi t h whi ch she was ent r ust ed,

poi nt i ng out , among other t hi ngs, t hat she was on occasi on

unpr epared and arguabl y bl under ed i n cr oss- exami ni ng t wo

pr osecut i on wi t nesses, t he r ecor d af f or ds no basi s t o concl ude

t hat t he cl ai med l apses wer e at t r i but abl e t o t he al l eged

conf l i ct . And, cont r ar y t o def endant ' s suggest i on, our cases do

not provi de t hat such a connect i on may be presumed. Al t hough a

def endant need not show t hat an unwai ved potent i al conf l i ct was a

sour ce of speci f i c pr ej udi ce (Sanchez, 21 NY3d at 223;

Konst ant i ni des, 14 NY3d at 4) , we have been cl ear t hat a

connect i on bet ween the pot ent i al conf l i ct and the

r epr esent at i onal def i ci ency must be made out ( see Sanchez, supr a;

Peopl e v Enni s, 11 NY3d at 411) . Whether i t i s made out ,

mor eover , i s ordi nar i l y t r eat ed as a mi xed quest i on

( Konst ant i ni des, 14 NY3d at 4) . Even i f co- counsel ' s

- 12 -


14/33

- 13 - No. 225

r epr esent at i on of def endant was i n some i mport ant r espect s

want i ng, t he r ecor d sheds no l i ght on t he f act - sensi t i ve quest i on

of whet her any such def i ci enci es wer e t r aceabl e t o conf l i ct

gener at ed r et i cence. That bei ng t he case def endant ' s conf l i ct -

based i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai m, as i t i s now pr esent ed, must

f ai l .

I I .

As par t of t hei r di r ect case, t he Peopl e sought t o

pl ace i n evi dence, not onl y t he ent r i es f r om def endant ' s j our nal s

i n whi ch def endant r umi nat ed over bei ng spurned by Ms. Woods - -

ent r i es whose admi ssi bi l i t y i s not now di sput ed - - but ot her

ent r i es concer ni ng hi s r el at i onshi ps wi t h and r ej ect i ons by t wo

ot her women dat i ng f r om t hr ee t o si x year s bef ore Ms. Woods'

mur der . I n t he l at t er ent r i es, def endant expr essed "pent up

r age" at t he f or mer obj ect s of hi s af f ect i ons - - whom he

descr i bed as " poi sonous" and "danger ous" - - and ber ated hi msel f

f or havi ng l et t hese pur por t edl y unf ai t hf ul par t ner s t ur n hi m

i nt o an obj ect of r i di cul e. He por t r ayed hi msel f as a "beast of

bur den" unabl e "t o f i nd r et r i but i on, " i . e. "t o ki l l . " He was, he

sai d, a "monst er , " obsessed wi t h " t hought s of r evenge. " These

di ar y ent r i es i ncl uded poems and dr awi ngs t hemat i cal l y

pr eoccupi ed by revenge f ant asi es i n whi ch kni ves wer e the

r et r i but i ve i nst r ument of choi ce.

As t he pr osecut or conceded, def endant never physi cal l y

har med hi s pr i or gi r l f r i ends. The t heor y upon whi ch t he di ar y

- 13 -


15/33

- 14 - No. 225

ent r i es about t hem wer e sought t o be admi t t ed, t hen, was not t hat

t he ent r i es wer e evi dence of pr i or bad act s r el evant i n some non-

pr opensi t y- based way t o t he pr oof of t he char ged cr i me - - i . e. as

evi dence admi ssi bl e under some except i on t o t he r ul e barr i ng t he

i nf er ence of gui l t f r om pr oof of no mor e t han pr opensi t y,

cl assi cal l y ar t i cul at ed i n Peopl e v Mol i neux ( 168 NY 264 [ 1901] )

- - but r ather t hat t hey evi denced a si mmer i ng mi sogyni st i c r age

whi ch, over t i me, pr ogr essed i n i t s i nt ensi t y and expr essi on f r om

t he r eal m of f ant asy t o enact ment . The t r i al pr osecut or sai d

t hat t he pr of f er ed evi dence as to def endant ' s st ate of mi nd

pr ovi ded " t he onl y cont ext i n whi ch we can underst and what

happened her e. " Def endant obj ect ed t o t he r ecei pt of t he

evi dence on t he gr ound t hat i t woul d be under st ood as i ndi cat i ve

of a mi sogyni st i c pr opensi t y and woul d engender specul at i on as to

whether he act ed upon some pr evi ousl y unsat i sf i ed homi ci dal

i mpul se. Def endant al so speci f i cal l y ar gued t hat t he Peopl e had

not made any Mol i neux appl i cat i on and t hat , i n t he absence of

Mol i neux vet t i ng, t he gr ound f or t he r ecei pt of t he pr opensi t y

evi dence was not cl ear . The t r i al cour t , i n r ul i ng t he evi dence

admi ssi bl e, r esponded t hat she "was not sure what t he evi dence

woul d i ndi cat e" but t hat "t he Peopl e wi l l be ar gui ng t hat t her e' s

a r ef l ect i on of a gr owi ng ki nd of st at e of mi nd. " When counsel

obj ect ed t hat t hi s was j ust a way of descr i bi ng pr opensi t y

evi dence, t he cour t r epl i ed t hat t he evi dence was not evi dence of

"pr opensi t y to commi t a cr i me" and t hat she di d not see i t as

- 14 -


16/33

- 15 - No. 225

"f i t t i ng i nt o Mol i neux. "

I f i n f act t hi s evi dence was f ai r l y pr obat i ve of "a

gr owi ng st at e of mi nd, " as t he cour t put i t , or , as t he

pr osecut or sai d, a "pr ogr essi on" of i ncreasi ng host i l i t y towar d

women cul mi nat i ng i n Ms. Woods' murder , i t was evi dence of

pr opensi t y, and t he Mol i neux doct r i ne, at i t s cor e, f or bi ds an

i nf er ence of gui l t f r om evi dence pr obat i ve of no mor e t han

pr edi sposi t i on t o a ki nd of behavi or ( see Peopl e v Agi na, 18 NY

600 [ 2012] ; Peopl e v Ar af et , 13 NY3d 460, 464- 465 [ 2009] ; Peopl e

v Al vi no, 71 NY2d 233, 241 [ 1987] ) . I t i s t r ue t hat , most

f r equent l y, Mol i neux' s anal yt i c f r amewor k i s i nvoked wher e t he

pr osecut i on pr oposes t o i nt r oduce evi dence of pr i or bad act s i n

pr oof of t he cr i me charged. But t he concer n wi t h evi dence of

pr opensi t y as a basi s f or a f i ndi ng t hat a def endant has

commi t t ed t he par t i cul ar cr i me f or whi ch he or she i s on t r i al ,

i s no l ess acut e wher e t he evi dence suggest i ve of per sonal

t endency i s of mer e t hought s. I ndeed, t he i nf er ence of gui l t ,

f r om t he l at t er sor t of pr opensi t y evi dence i s par t i cul ar l y

per i l ous. Ther e i s a wi de gul f bet ween t hought and act ,

especi al l y conduct of a mur der ous sor t . I f , i n t he set t i ng of a

cri mi nal t r i al , i t i s not an accept abl e i nf er ence t hat a per son

i s gui l t y si mpl y because he has done t hi ngs si mi l ar t o those

char ged, i t cannot be any mor e accept abl e - - and l ogi cal l y woul d

be l ess so - - t o suppose t hat a def endant has done t he t hi ng of

whi ch he i s accused si mpl y because i n some tempor al l y remot e

- 15 -


17/33

- 16 - No. 225

cont ext he has had t hought s of such t hi ngs.

Of cour se, wher e t her e i s an obj ect i vel y di scer ni bl e

connect i on bet ween t hought and act , evi dence of t hought may be

hi ghl y rel evant and admi ssi bl e to pr ove i nt ent or mot i ve ( see

Peopl e v Fi t zger al d, 156 NY 253, 258- 259 [1898] ; and see e. g.

Peopl e v Moor e, 42 NY2d 421, 428 [ 1977] ) . But where t hi nki ng i s

i t sel f pr obat i ve of no mor e t han ment al pr eoccupat i on - - i . e. , i t

bear s no readi l y di scer ni bl e connect i on t o an act - - i t cannot be

r el i abl y i ndi cat i ve of much. I t has l ong been under st ood t hat

" [ t ] he mot i ve at t r i but ed t o t he accused i n any case must have

some l egal or l ogi cal r el at i on t o t he cr i mi nal act accor di ng t o

known r ul es and pr i nci pl es of human conduct . I f i t has not such

r el at i on, or i f i t poi nt s i n one di r ect i on as wel l as i n t he

ot her , i t cannot be consi der ed a l egi t i mat e par t of t he pr oof "

( Fi t zger al d, 156 NY at 258- 259) . Pr oof of no mor e t han

unconsummat ed ment al pr eoccupat i on i s an i nvi t at i on t o

specul at i on i ncompat i bl e wi t h t he di sci pl i ned i nf er ent i al

exer ci se r equi r ed of a j ur or i n a cr i mi nal case. The pr osecut or

i n hi s summat i on of f er ed t hat def endant was " l i ke a vol cano wher e

t he per son you ar e i s bui l di ng up, bui l di ng up and bui l di ng up;

and t he vol cano seems passi ve, dormant ; and t hen, al l of a

sudden, boom; t her e' s a huge expl osi on, " t hus exhor t i ng t he j ur y,

on t he basi s of a r i chl y descr i pt i ve but sci ent i f i cal l y basel ess

geot her mal anal ogy, t o dr aw a connect i on bet ween thoughts and an

ext r eme act years removed. There was no compet ent l y est abl i shed

- 16 -


18/33

- 17 - No. 225

psychol ogi cal t heor y t o support such a connect i on. Whi l e t he

evi dence of pr i or t hought s was pur por t edl y i nt r oduced t o suppl y

"cont ext , " t hat ver y evi dence i n t he end par adoxi cal l y cr eat ed a

need f or cont ext t hat t he pr osecut or coul d not and shoul d not

hi msel f have at t empt ed t o pr ovi de.

The probl em wi t h t he evi dence of def endant ' s t emporal l y

r emote br oodi ngs was, f undament al l y, t hat i t was t oo at t enuated

f r om any act t o be r el evant , even under some except i on t o t he

Mol i neux pr ohi bi t i on, t o pr ovi ng def endant ' s commi ssi on of Ms.

Woods' mur der . Al t hough t he Peopl e' s appel l at e cl ai m i s that

def endant ' s t houghts about ot her women who had r ej ect ed hi m were

pr obat i ve of hi s mot i ve t o ki l l , t her e was no i ssue as t o whet her

def endant had a mot i ve t o ki l l Ms. Woods, onl y as t o whet her he

had actual l y done so, and, as noted, no connect i on bet ween

def endant ' s di st ant mi sogyni st i c t hought s and t he charged conduct

was made out . What was i nst ead i nvi t ed was t he conj ect ur e t hat

def endant possessed a mi sogyni st i c i mpul se t hat had f i nal l y

bl ossomed i nto t he murder of a young woman. And, whi l e i t was

not di f f i cul t t o const r uct a super f i ci al l y convi nci ng nar r at i ve

based on t hi s pr opensi t y dr i ven supposi t i on, i t i s pr eci sel y such

a car el essl y const r uct ed yet hi ghl y seduct i ve nar r at i ve t hat t he

Mol i neux doct r i ne pr udent l y excl udes f r om a cr i mi nal t r i al .

I t woul d not be r eal i st i c t o say t hat t he i nt r oduct i on

and expl oi t at i on of t hi s i nf l ammat or y evi dence was beni gn. I t

woul d, however , be at l east equal l y unr eal i st i c t o suppose that

- 17 -


19/33

- 18 - No. 225

i t was out come det er mi nat i ve. The pr oper l y admi t t ed pr oof of

def endant ' s morbi d pr eoccupat i on wi t h Ms. Woods combi ned wi t h t he

f or ensi c cr i me scene evi dence l i nki ng hi m t o her mur der , was

ext r aor di nar i l y power f ul as was wer e t he cel l phone r ecor ds

t r aci ng def endant ' s movement s t oward and away f r om t he l ocus of

t he cr i me. We agr ee wi t h t he Appel l at e Di vi si on t hat t he pr oof

bef or e t he j ur y over whel mi ngl y poi nt ed t o the concl usi on t hat

def endant was Ms. Woods' assai l ant . I t may be, as def endant now

ar gues, t hat t he pr obat i ve val ue of t he l at ent pr i nt f ound at t he

cr i me scene shoul d not have been as great as i t was made t o seem

at t r i al ; def endant i n hi s repl y br i ef r ef er s t o sever al ar t i cl es

chal l engi ng the accur acy wi t h whi ch such pr i nt s may be at t r i but ed

t o a par t i cul ar per son. But t hese st udi es, al l of whi ch wer e

publ i shed af t er def endant ' s t r i al , ar e not par t of t he t r i al

r ecor d and cannot bear upon our assessment of t he st r engt h of t he

pr oof actual l y bef or e t he j ur y. I f t her e i s a cl ai m t hat def ense

counsel wer e i nef f ect i ve f or f ai l i ng t o pur sue an avai l abl e and

pot ent i al l y deci si ve l i ne of def ense mor e aggr essi vel y

chal l engi ng t he at t r i but i on of t he l at ent mur der scene

f i nger pr i nt t o t hei r cl i ent , t hat woul d be appr opr i at el y r ai sed,

i f at al l , on a mot i on pur suant CPL 440. 10. I t i s not r evi ewabl e

on t he pr esent r ecor d.

- 18 -


20/33


21/33

- 2 - No. 225

concomi t ant r i ght t o r et ai n counsel of hi s or her choi ce ( see

Gomberg, 38 NY2d at 313) . Al t hough t he t r i al j udge undoubt edl y

"owes a dut y i ndependent of counsel t o pr ot ect t he r i ght of an

accused t o ef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel " ( Peopl e v McDonal d,

68 NY2d 1, 8 [ 1986] [ quot at i on marks omi t t ed] ) , at t he same t i me,

t he t r i al j udge must be mi ndf ul not t o "arbi t r ar i l y i nt er f er e

wi t h t he at t or ney- cl i ent r el at i onshi p" ( Gomber g, 38, NY2d at

313) .

Once t he t r i al j udge i s i nf or med of t he conf l i ct or

awar e of f act s i ndi cat i ng t hat conf l i ct i ng i nt er est s ar guabl y

exi st , he or she "must conduct a recor d i nqui r y" t o det er mi ne

whet her t he def endant i s awar e of t he possi bl e r i sks i nvol ved i n

t he pot ent i al l y conf l i ct - r i dden r epr esent at i on and has made a

knowi ng and i nf ormed deci si on t o cont i nue wi t h t hat

r epr esent at i on i n spi t e of t he conf l i ct ( McDonal d, 68 NY2d at 8;

see Peopl e v Sol omon, 20 NY3d 91, 95 [ 2012] ; Gomberg, 38 NY2d at

313- 314; see al so Peopl e v Macer ol a, 47 NY2d 257, 263 [ 1979] ) .

The cour t s i nqui r y must be suf f i ci ent l y searchi ng t o assure

t hat [ t he def endant s] wai ver was i nf or med and vol unt ar y ( Peopl e

v Caban, 70 NY2d 695, 696- 97 [ 1987] ) , but i t general l y need not

be as t horough or as det ai l ed as t hat r equi r ed of t he at t or ney

( Peopl e v Ll oyd, 51 NY2d 107, 111 [ 1980] ) . As we expl ai ned i n

Ll oyd, [ b] ecause t he exact nat ur e of t he def ense and

par t i cul ar l y def ense st r at egy must r emai n of f l i mi t s t o t he

cour t [ , ] t he ext ent of t he pr ecaut i ons t o be t aken by t he t r i al

- 2 -


22/33

- 3 - No. 225

cour t t o i nsur e t hat t he def endant [ ] per cei ve[ s] t he r i sk

i nher ent i n [ t he] r epr esent at i on must necessari l y i nvol ve a

measur e of di scr et i on ( 51 NY2d at 112) . Thus, we r equi r e onl y

t hat t he t r i al j udge make a r easonabl e i nqui r y of possi bl e

conf l i ct ( Gomber g, 38 NY2d at 316) t hat "exami ne[ s] t he natur e

of t he r el at i onshi p or ci r cumst ances t hat ar e al l eged t o

est abl i sh a conf l i ct " ( Peopl e v Enni s, 11 NY3d 403, 410 [ 2008] ,

cer t deni ed, 129 S Ct 2383 [ 2009] ) , and admoni shes t he def endant

as t o t he pot ent i al pi t f al l s i nher ent i n t he r epr esent at i on

( Macer ol a, 47 NY2d at 263) .

The Chi ef J udge' s opi ni on appar ent l y t akes umbrage wi t h

t hi s Cour t ' s r el uct ance t o pr escr i be a par t i cul ar f or mat or

cat echi sm t hat t he cour t must f ol l ow when conduct i ng a conf l i ct

i nqui r y ( Ll oyd, 51 NY2d at 112; see Caban, 70 NY2d at 697) .

I ndeed, we have pr ef er r ed t o al l ow t r i al j udges t o t ai l or t he

i nqui r y t o t he par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances t o whi ch t he [ conf l i ct ]

wai ver r el at es ( Li ppman concur r i ng op, at 5) .

I n my vi ew, t hi s f l exi bi l i t y enabl es t he t r i al cour t t o

ef f ect i vel y f ul f i l l i t s dut y t o conduct a conf l i ct i nqui ry wi t hi n

t he par t i cul ar cont ext of t he case bef or e i t . When a conf l i ct

i nqui r y t akes pl ace pr i or t o t r i al ( as we have sai d i t shoul d) ,

t he cour t may not be f ul l y aware of t he evi dence, t he natur e of

t he def endant s' case or i t s r ami f i cat i ons ( Ll oyd, 51 NY2d at

111) , and an over l y sear chi ng j udi ci al i nqui r y coul d

i nadver t ent l y i nf r i nge upon t he def endant ' s r i ght t o r et ai n and

- 3 -


23/33

- 4 - No. 225

conf er wi t h counsel of hi s own choi ce ( Gomberg, 38 NY2d at 313;

see Ll oyd, 51 NY2d at 111 [ t o r equi r e t he def endant or hi s

at t or ney t o di scl ose t o t he cour t det ai l s of t he def ense, def ense

conf er ences, or st r at egy woul d i n i t sel f i nvade t he def endant s'

r i ght s, i ncl udi ng t he r i ght t o counsel ]) . I t i s al so not

uncommon f or t r i al j udges t o encount er def endant s who ar e

i ncl i ned, when conf r ont ed wi t h pr obi ng quest i ons f r om t he bench,

t o shar e mor e i nf or mat i on t han i s necessar y or advi sabl e

concer ni ng t hei r at t or neys r epr esent at i on. Gi ven t hat t r i al

j udges ar e i n t he best posi t i on t o eval uat e t hese case- by- case

ci r cumst ances, t hey shoul d be per mi t t ed t o empl oy common sense

r ather t han cat echi sms, and shoul d not be const r ai ned by a

conf l i ct i nqui r y t hat i s f or mul ai c rat her t han adapt i ve t o t he

condi t i ons of t he speci f i c case.

The Chi ef J udge' s opi ni on endor ses, over our Gomberg

l i ne of cases, t he st r i cter i nqui r y pr ot ocol out l i ned i n Uni t ed

St at es v Cur ci o (680 F2d 881, 888- 890 [ 1982] ) and wi del y

empl oyed by t he Second Ci r cui t ( Li ppman concur r i ng op, at 7) .

Li ke our Gomber g i nqui r y, t he Cur ci o procedur es ar e i nt ended

t o per mi t t he cour t t o det er mi ne whet her t he def endant ' s wai ver

of hi s r i ght t o conf l i ct- f r ee counsel i s knowi ng and i nt el l i gent

( Uni t ed St ates v Rodr i guez ( 968 F2d 130, 139 [ 2d Ci r 1992] ) .

However , as Chi ef J udge not es i n hi s concur r ence, t he Cur ci o

i nqui r y f or mat i s a si gni f i cant l y mor e par t i cul ar and sear chi ng

j udi ci al i nqui r y t han t hat descr i bed by Gomberg ( Li ppman

- 4 -


24/33


25/33

- 6 - No. 225

i s not cl ear whet her t he Cur ci o appr oach appr opr i at el y account s

f or our concer n t hat a t r i al cour t avoi d del vi ng t oo deepl y i nt o

t he at t or ney- cl i ent r el at i onshi p f or f ear of upset t i ng t he

def endant s r i ght t o r et ai n counsel of choi ce ( see Gomber g, 38

NY2d at 313) .

The Chi ef J udge' s opi ni on suggest s t hat t he Curci o

pr ot ocol wi l l r esol ve exi st i ng doubt . . . as t o how a conf l i ct

wai ver i nqui r y shoul d pr oceed ( Li ppman concur r i ng op, at 8) .

Whi l e t her e have been some cal l s f or f ur t her cl ar i t y regar di ng a

t r i al j udge s r esponsi bi l i t i es i n conduct i ng a Gomber g i nqui r y

( see e. g. Ll oyd, 51 NY2d at 112 [ J ones, H. R. , J . , di ssent i ng]

[ not i ng t hat t he r esponsi bi l i t y of t he Tr i al J udge i n cases

i nvol vi ng j oi nt r epr esent at i on shoul d be made cl ear ] ) , and t he

t r i al j udge i n t hi s case admi t t ed t hat she "never qui t e know[ s]

what t o say about [ an at t or ney' s conf l i ct ] " ( see Li ppman

concur r i ng op, at 8 n 2) , t hese doubt s do not appear be so

wi despr ead as t o war r ant a subst ant i al al t er at i on i n our conf l i ct

i nqui r y j ur i spr udence. Fur t her , any need t o cl ar i f y how a t r i al

j udge shoul d conduct a proper Gomberg i nqui r y can be achi eved by

r esor t t o our exi st i ng pr ecedent .

I woul d not f orgo our Gomber g conf l i ct wai ver

j ur i sprudence, and t o t he ext ent t hat t he Chi ef J udge' s opi ni on

r el i es on t hat pr ecedent i n hol di ng t hat t he t r i al cour t s

conf l i ct i nqui r y was def i ci ent her e, I concur i n i t s rat i onal e.

I f ur t her agr ee t hat , al t hough t he t r i al cour t di d not secur e a

- 6 -


26/33

- 7 - No. 225

val i d wai ver f r om def endant , def endant f ai l ed t o meet hi s bur den

t o show t hat co- counsel s pot ent i al conf l i ct oper at ed on hi s

def ense and, t hus, hi s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai m

must be rej ect ed ( see Peopl e v Konst ant i ni des, 14 NY3d 1, 10

[ 2009] ) .

I I .

The second i ssue i n t hi s case concer ns t he admi ssi on of

def endant s j our nal ent r i es about hi s f or mer gi r l f r i ends - -

wr i t t en sever al year s pr i or t o the mur der of Ms. Woods - - i n

whi ch def endant expr essed, among other t hi ngs, ext r eme host i l i t y

t owar ds t he gi r l f r i ends and, ar guabl y, women i n gener al . The

Chi ef J udge' s opi ni on cont ends t hat t he chal l enged j our nal

ent r i es ar e "evi dence of pr opensi t y" t hat shoul d have been

subj ect t o t he r i gor s of "Mol i neux' s anal yt i c f r amewor k" ( Li ppman

concur r i ng op, at 15) . Whi l e I agr ee t hat t he t r i al cour t abused

i t s di scr et i on as a mat t er of l aw i n admi t t i ng t he j our nal

ent r i es t hat , i n my vi ew, shoul d have been excl uded based upon

r el evance and r edundancy gr ounds, I cannot subscr i be to t he

unwarr ant ed expansi on of t he Mol i neux doct r i ne pr oposed i n the

Chi ef J udge' s concur r ence.

Deci ded i n 1901, Peopl e v Mol i neux (168 NY 264 [1901] )

pr escr i bed t he now- f ami l i ar r ul e t hat evi dence of a def endant ' s

unchar ged cr i mes, pr i or cr i mes, or pr i or bad act s i s gener al l y

i nadmi ssi bl e when i t serves " onl y t o show t he def endant ' s

cr i mi nal pr opensi t y" ( Peopl e v Caban, 14 NY3d 369, 374 [ 2010] ;

- 7 -


27/33

- 8 - No. 225

see e. g. Peopl e v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 559 [ 2012] ) . The Mol i neux

r ul e, we have expl ai ned, " ' i s based on pol i cy and not on l ogi c' "

( Peopl e v Ar af et , 13 NY3d 460, 465, quot i ng Peopl e v Al l wei ss, 48

NY2d 40, 46 [ 1979] ) . Al t hough " [ i ] t may be l ogi cal t o concl ude

f r om a def endant ' s pr i or cri mes t hat he [ or she] i s i ncl i ned t o

act cr i mi nal l y, " t hi s evi dence i s nonet hel ess "excl uded f or

pol i cy reasons because i t may i nduce t he j ur y t o base a f i ndi ng

of gui l t on col l at er al mat t er s or t o convi ct a def endant because

of hi s past " ( Peopl e v Ar af et , 13 NY3d 460, 465 [ 2009] , quot i ng

Peopl e v Al vi no, 71 NY2d 233, 241 [ 1987] [ quot at i on marks

omi t t ed] ; see Mol i neux, 168 NY at 313) .

I n l i ght of t hese uni que concer ns, t he admi ssi on of

Mol i neux evi dence i s subj ect ed t o "t he most r i gi d scr ut i ny"

( Mol i neux, supr a) .

"To det ermi ne whet her Mol i neux evi dence maybe admi t t ed i n a par t i cul ar case, t he t r i al

cour t must engage i n t he f ol l owi ng t wo- parti nqui r y: f i r st , t he pr oponent of t he evi dencemust i dent i f y some mat er i al i ssue, ot her t hant he def endant ' s cr i mi nal pr opensi t y, t o whi cht he evi dence i s di r ect l y r el evant ; once t her equi si t e showi ng i s made, t he t r i al cour tmust wei gh t he evi dence' s probat i ve val ueagai nst i t s pot ent i al f or undue pr ej udi ce t ot he def endant "

( Cass, 18 NY3d at 560 [ i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed] ) .

The t r i al cour t must be sensi t i ve t o " t he par t i cul ar

pr ej udi ce t hat may r esul t when a j ur y i s made aware of t he f act

t hat t he def endant has pr evi ousl y commi t t ed cr i mes t hat are

si mi l ar t o t he charged cr i me" ( Peopl e v Wal ker , 83 NY2d 455, 463

- 8 -


28/33

- 9 - No. 225

[ 1994] [ descr i bi ng t hese concer ns i n t he Sandoval cont ext ] ) . The

r eason f or t hi s i s obvi ous: "i t i s much easi er t o bel i eve i n t he

gui l t of an accused per son when i t i s known or suspect ed t hat he

[ or she] has pr evi ousl y commi t t ed a si mi l ar cr i me" ( Mol i neux, 168

NY at 313) . Thus, al t hough t he second part of t he Mol i neux

i nqui r y i s si mi l ar t o "t he t est by whi ch al l r el evant evi dence i s

measur ed, " a t r i al j udge eval uat i ng Mol i neux evi dence must

"appr oach t he normal bal anci ng pr ocess wi t h a hei ght ened

awar eness of t he uni que ki nd of pr ej udi ce t hat ext r i nsi c of f ense

evi dence can produce" ( Peopl e v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 69- 70 [ 1988]

[ Wacht l er , Ch. J . , di ssent i ng] , abr ogat ed on ot her gr ounds by

Carmel l v Texas, 529 US 513 [2000] ) .

The Chi ef J udge' s opi ni on r ecogni zes t hat "Mol i neux' s

anal yt i c f r amework" i s most f r equent l y " i nvoked wher e t he

pr osecut i on pr oposes t o i nt r oduce evi dence of pr i or bad act s i n

pr oof of t he cr i me char ged" ( Li ppman concur r i ng op, at 15) . Hi s

opi ni on nonethel ess pr oposes appl yi ng t hat f r amework here because

t he chal l enged j our nal ent r i es cont ai ned def endant s pr i or bad

t hought s t hat wer e admi t t ed, essent i al l y, as evi dence of [ hi s]

pr opensi t y t o act on hi s i ncr easi ngl y vi ol ent and mi sogyni st i c

t hought s by mur der i ng Ms. Woods ( i d. ) .

The appl i cat i on of t he Mol i neux r ul e suggest ed i n t he

Chi ef J udge' s concur r ence r epr esent s a novel expansi on of t hat

doct r i ne whi ch, i n my vi ew, i s bot h unnecessary and i l l advi sed.

The Mol i neux r ul e was cr eat ed t o addr ess a par t i cul ar prej udi ce

- 9 -


29/33

- 10 - No. 225

i nher ent t o a par t i cul ar t ype of pr oof : evi dence of a def endant s

pr i or cr i mes and bad act s. Whi l e we have r ecogni zed addi t i onal

"nonpr opensi t y pur poses f or whi ch pr i or cr i me evi dence may be

r el evant beyond those announced i n Mol i neux ( Peopl e v Morr i s, 21

NY3d 588, 2013 NY Sl i p Op 06633, at *4 [ 2013] [ not i ng that " ( t ) he

Mol i neux cat egor i es" - - ( 1) i nt ent , ( 2) mot i ve, ( 3) knowl edge,

( 4) common scheme or pl an, or ( 5) i dent i t y of t he def endant - -

"are not exhaust i ve"] ) , t he Chi ef J udge' s opi ni on poi nt s t o no

case i n whi ch we appl i ed Mol i neux t o eval uat e t he admi ssi on of

evi dence unr el at ed t o a def endant ' s pr i or cr i me or mi sconduct .

Her e, of cour se, t he evi dence concer ns nei t her of t hese

t hi ngs. The chal l enged j our nal ent r i es ar e wr i t i ngs t hat

r ef l ect , at most , def endant ' s pr i or bad t hought s about hi s f or mer

gi r l f r i ends. Def endant commi t t ed no cr i me by wr i t i ng t he j our nal

ent r i es and t he par t i es st i pul at ed t hat def endant never har med

t he women r ef er enced t her ei n. Thus, t he evi dence her e i s si mpl y

not Mol i neux evi dence, whi ch we have consi st ent l y def i ned as

evi dence of a def endant ' s pri or cr i mes or bad act s.

Nor shoul d we expand t he Mol i neux r ul e to i ncl ude pr i or

bad t hought evi dence si mpl y because i t was admi t t ed as pr opensi t y

evi dence, as t he Chi ef J udge' s opi ni on cont ends. Al l r el evant

evi dence of gui l t i n some sense shows t he def endant ' s cr i mi nal

pr opensi t y and has the pot ent i al t o pr ej udi ce t he def endant . But

Mol i neux was not meant t o appl y t o the admi ss i on of al l

pr opensi t y evi dence. Rather , more t han a cent ur y of our Mol i neux

- 10 -


30/33

- 11 - No. 225

j ur i sprudence has made cl ear t hat pr i or cr i me/ bad act evi dence

( and t hi s par t i cul ar pr opensi t y evi dence al one) r ai ses such a

uni quel y hi gh r i sk of undue pr ej udi ce t hat t he t r i al cour t must

er r on t he si de of def er ence t o t he def endant when consi der i ng

whet her t o admi t t he evi dence. I ndeed, under Mol i neux, t he pr i or

cr i me evi dence i s of t en excl uded because i t s undue pr ej udi ce

out wei ghs any pr obat i ve val ue. By appl yi ng Mol i neux i n t he

cont ext of t hi s case, t he Chi ef J udge' s opi ni on pr oposes t hat

pr i or bad t hought evi dence be subj ect t o the same def er ent i al

anal ysi s when, i n my vi ew, t he def er ence shoul d be reserved

excl usi vel y f or pr oof of t he def endant s pr i or cr i mes or bad

act s.

Consi der i ng t he new gr ound t he Chi ef J udge' s

concur r ence at t empt s t o br eak, i t pr ovi des l i t t l e gui dance on how

t o appl y t he expanded Mol i neux doct r i ne i n f ut ur e cases i nvol vi ng

pr i or bad t hought evi dence. Ost ensi bl y, t hi s br oadened doct r i ne

coul d appl y t o any case i nvol vi ng evi dence of a def endant s bad

t hought s t hat ar e not par t - and- par cel of t he char ged cr i me and

t hat bear any i ndi ci a of cri mi nal pr opensi t y. I dent i f yi ng t he

j ournal ent r i es as pr i or bad t hought evi dence was r el at i vel y

st r ai ght f or war d her e, but t he t ask of det er mi ni ng whet her

evi dence const i t ut es a pr i or bad t hought t hat t r i gger s t he

Mol i neux r ul e coul d pr ove unwi el dy i n f ut ur e cases. The Chi ef

J udge' s opi ni on has al so f ai l ed t o consi der whether t he prot ocol s

at t endant t o t he pr of f er of Mol i neux evi dence - - f or exampl e, t he

- 11 -


31/33

- 12 - No. 225

r equi r ement t hat t he pr osecut i on make a pr e- t r i al appl i cat i on f or

a Mol i neux or Vent i mi gl i a hear i ng, and t he r ul e t hat t he t r i al

cour t i ssue l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i ons t o accompany t he admi ssi on of

t he evi dence - - appl y when pr i or bad t hought s are at i ssue.

Ul t i mat el y, r el i ance on Mol i neux i s unnecessar y because

t he j our nal ent r i es shoul d have been excl uded based on general

evi dent i ary pr i nci pl es. We have observed t hat r el evance " i s not

al ways enough" t o render evi dence admi ssi bl e "si nce ' even i f t he

evi dence i s pr oxi mat el y r el evant , i t may be r ej ect ed i f i t s

pr obat i ve val ue i s out wei ghed by t he danger t hat i t s admi ssi on

woul d pr ol ong t he t r i al t o an unr easonabl e extent wi t hout any

cor r espondi ng advant age; or woul d conf use t he mai n i ssue and

mi sl ead t he j ur y; or unf ai r l y sur pr i se a par t y; or creat e

subst ant i al danger of undue pr ej udi ce t o one of t he par t i es' "

( Peopl e v Davi s, 43 NY2d 17, 27 [1977] , quot i ng Ri chardson,

Evi dence [ Pr i nce - - 10t h ed] , 147, p 117; see al so Peopl e v

Wal ker , 83 NY2d 455, 463 [ 1994] [ not i ng t hat , even absent t he

speci al r i sk of an i nf er ence of pr opensi t y ar i si ng f r om t he use

of pr i or cr i mes evi dence f or i mpeachment i n t he Sandoval cont ext ,

t he t r i al cour t ' s exer ci se of di scret i on i n admi t t i ng evi dence

must be i nf ormed by "ordi nary pr i nci pl es of common sense and

f ai r ness" ] ; Peopl e v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 80- 81 [ 1978] [ f i ndi ng

t hat pr i or i nconsi st ent st at ement s admi ssi bl e f or i mpeachment

pur poses may st i l l be excl uded as a mat t er of t he t r i al cour t ' s

di scret i on i n or der t o avoi d undue expl or at i on of col l at er al

- 12 -


32/33

- 13 - No. 225

mat t er s] ) . Al t hough a t r i al cour t enj oys br oad di scret i on i n

deci di ng whether t o admi t evi dence chal l enged as undul y

cumul at i ve and pr ej udi ci al , t he cour t commi t s l egal er r or

whenever t he r ecor d cl ear l y ref l ect s t he cour t ' s compl et e f ai l ur e

t o exer ci se i t s di scret i on i n r esponse t o a def endant ' s f ocused

chal l enge t o t he admi ssi bi l i t y of t he evi dence ( see Wal ker , 83

NY2d at 459 [ st at i ng t hat t hi s Cour t wi l l di st ur b a t r i al cour t ' s

exer ci se of di scr et i on i n admi t t i ng evi dence "onl y wher e ' t he

t r i al cour t ha( s) ei t her abused i t s di scret i on or exer ci sed none

at al l ' " ] , quot i ng Peopl e v Wi l l i ams, 56 NY2d 236, 238 [ 1982] ;

see al so Peopl e v Pet t y, 7 NY3d 277, 286 [ 2006] [ observi ng that

t he deci si on t o admi t or pr ecl ude evi dence on t he gr ound t hat i t

i s undul y cumul at i ve l i es wi t hi n t he di scret i on of t he t r i al

court]) .

Her e, t he Chi ef J udge' s opi ni on concl udes t hat t he

j ournal ent r i es wer e t oo at t enuat ed f r om any act t o be r el evant ,

even under some except i on t o t he Mol i neux pr ohi bi t i on, t o pr ovi ng

def endant ' s commi ssi on of Ms. Woods' mur der ( Li ppman concurr i ng

op, at 17) . I ndeed, t he cont est ed j our nal ent r i es, whi ch wer e

about women ot her t han Ms. Woods and were t empor al l y r emot e f r om

her mur der , nei t her addr essed def endant ' s act i ons or at t i t ude

t oward Woods nor r eveal ed i nf ormat i on about def endant s general

st at e of mi nd t hat coul d not have easi l y been gl eaned f r om t he

j ournal ent r i es about t he vi ct i m hersel f , whi ch wer e admi t t ed

wi t hout any obj ect i on. Rather , t he evi dence was cumul at i ve of

- 13 -


33/33

- 14 - No. 225

admi t t ed ent r i es, bor e l i t t l e pr obat i ve wor t h, and pr ej udi ci al l y

suggest ed t hat def endant was general l y a mi sogyni st and a bad

per son.

Gi ven t hat def endant dr ew t he t r i al cour t ' s at t ent i on

t o t hese ver y i ssues, t he t r i al cour t shoul d have at l east

exer ci sed some di scr et i on by consi der i ng t he pr obat i ve val ue,

pr ej udi ci al ef f ect , and cumul at i ve qual i t y of t he evi dence bef or e

admi t t i ng i t . I nst ead, t he r ecor d shows t hat t he cour t ended i t s

i nqui r y at r el evance wi t hout addr essi ng t hose ot her i mpor t ant

consi der at i ons. Accor di ngl y, t he cour t abused i t s di scret i on as

a mat t er of l aw by er r oneousl y admi t t i ng t he di sput ed evi dence.

As t he Chi ef J udge' s opi ni on not es, such an abuse of di scr et i on

was har ml ess i n l i ght of t he ot her evi dence pr ovi ng def endant s

gui l t .

- 14 -

Cortez Conviction, Court of Appeals

Documents

Transcript of Cortez Conviction, Court of Appeals