People v. Damiano, 87 N.Y.2d 874 (1995)
A defendant’s implied consent to the submission of an annotated verdict sheet to the jury is a factual question, and the lower court’s finding on this matter must be upheld if supported by the record.
Summary
This case addresses whether a defendant implicitly consented to the submission of an annotated verdict sheet to the jury. The Appellate Division reversed convictions on some counts, finding no consent. The Court of Appeals held that implied consent is a factual question. Because the Appellate Division’s finding of no consent was based on its analysis of the record and competing inferences, and not purely on a matter of law, the People’s appeal was dismissed. The Court also upheld the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction.
Facts
The defendant was convicted on several counts. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reversing convictions on some counts where the verdict sheet was annotated and affirming the remaining convictions. The annotations on the verdict sheet included factual information beyond merely identifying the charges. The People argued the defendant impliedly consented to the annotated verdict sheet.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court convicted the defendant. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, reversing convictions on specific counts and affirming the rest, and affirmed the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside the conviction. The People appealed the reversal of some convictions. The defendant appealed the affirmance of the denial of his motion to vacate the conviction. The Court of Appeals addressed both appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the Appellate Division’s finding of no consent to the submission of an annotated verdict sheet was a determination of law alone.
2. Whether the lower courts erred in finding the defendant waived his request for prior testimony minutes of a People’s witness.
3. Whether the defendant’s conviction should be vacated because the prosecution allegedly failed to disclose the possible falsity of a People’s witness’s testimony.
Holding
1. No, because the Appellate Division’s finding was based on its factual analysis of the record, involving competing inferences drawn from the record, and thus the People’s appeal must be dismissed.
2. No, because evidentiary support exists in the record for the finding that defendant waived his request.
3. No, because the defendant’s claims are without merit.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the issue of a defendant’s implied consent is a factual question. They cited precedent (People v. Ferguson, People v. Connor, People v. Epps) stating that factual findings of lower courts regarding implied waiver of procedural rights must be upheld if supported by the record. The court emphasized that the Appellate Division’s decision was based on its analysis of the record, specifically the competing inferences about whether the defendant truly consented. Because the Appellate Division’s reversal was not based solely on a matter of law, the People’s appeal was dismissed, as CPL 450.90[2][a] limits appeals to questions of law alone.
The Court distinguished the counts where the verdict sheet included substantive annotations from counts where the annotations were merely identifying (dates, names). Only the former were reversed.
Regarding the defendant’s appeal, the Court deferred to the lower courts’ finding that the defendant waived his right to certain testimony minutes. They also found no merit in the claim that the prosecution failed to disclose potentially false testimony, discovered only in a subsequent trial. As stated in the opinion: “We likewise agree with the Appellate Division’s rejection, as meritless, of defendant’s claims in his CPL 440.10 motion that his conviction should be vacated because the prosecution did not disclose the possible falsity of certain testimony of a People’s witness, only discovered when that witness testified at a trial subsequent to that at bar.”