People v. WalkerPeople v. Walker
Decided and Entered: January 14, 2021
110150
Calendar Date: December 16, 2020
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Mulvey, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.
Catherine A. Barber, Guilderland, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.
Mulvey, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hogan, J.), rendered December 13, 2017 in Schenectady County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of rape in the first degree, strangulation in the second degree and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.
In January 2017, based on an incident during which defendant allegedly assaulted the victim inside an apartment and in
The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. By not renewing his motion for a trial order of dismissal after the presentation of his defense case, defendant failed to preserve his legal sufficiency challenge (see People v Persen, 185 AD3d 1288, 1289 [2020]; People v Drayton, 183 AD3d 1008, 1008-1009 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1065 [2020]). “Nevertheless, as part of our weight of the evidence review, we necessarily determine whether the People proved each element of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v Persen, 185 AD3d at 1289 [citations omitted]; see People v Drayton, 183 AD3d at 1009). “[W]here, as here, it would not have been unreasonable for the jury to have reached a different verdict, we must weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence” (People v Persen, 185 AD3d at 1289). “When conducting this review, we consider the evidence in a neutral light and defer to the jury‘s credibility assessments” (People v McCabe, 182 AD3d 772, 773 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
Regarding the counts of which defendant was convicted, the victim testified that defendant shoved her, knocked her to the ground in the hallway, choked her to the point that she lost consciousness, dragged her to the trash room and engaged in sexual intercourse without her consent. Photographs depicted blood on the apartment door and hallway wall, scratches on defendant‘s back and dried blood and bruising on the victim‘s face, neck, chest, arms and hands. Medical records also noted the victim‘s injuries. A video from the hallway shows defendant struggling with the victim, putting his arms and hands around her neck, and then leading her to the trash room. Two police officers testified that when they discovered defendant and the victim in the trash room, defendant was shirtless, had his pants down and was lying on top of the victim in between her legs. One of the officers specifically testified that it appeared like defendant was penetrating the victim. The victim had no pants on and mouthed “help me” to that officer.
Defendant testified that, after they had consensual sex in the apartment and the victim ingested crack cocaine, she began acting unusual and ran into the hallway. He testified that he followed her for her safety and put her in a headlock, which was not tight, to get her under control. According to defendant, because they were partially naked and the apartment door had locked when they went into the hallway, they went into the trash room but did not do anything there and were standing in different corners of the room when the police arrived.
A different verdict would not have been unreasonable had the jury accepted defendant‘s version of events. However, the victim‘s lengthy criminal history and addictions to alcohol and crack cocaine, which were explored during her testimony, did not render her incredible per se. Although the jury did not accept the entirety of the victim‘s testimony — as is clear from its acquittal on numerous charges — we defer to the jury‘s credibility determination in favor of the victim‘s testimony regarding
County Court properly denied defendant‘s suppression motion. The People concede that defendant was handcuffed, in custody and had not been Mirandized at the time that he made the statement at issue. However, the officer did not interrogate defendant when she told him to relax and that she was in control. Because this simple administrative instruction — which did not call for a verbal response — could not “reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a statement from . . . defendant,” defendant‘s statement to the officer was spontaneous and need not be suppressed (People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 480 [1982]; see People v Higgins, 124 AD3d 929, 932 [2015]; People v Starks, 37 AD3d 863, 864-865 [2007]; compare People v George, 127 AD3d 1496, 1497 [2015]).
Defendant failed to preserve his arguments that the verdict was repugnant (see People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745, 746 [1982]; People v Burwell, 183 AD3d 173, 183 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1043 [2020]; People v Poulin, 159 AD3d 1049, 1052-1053 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 940 [2018]), that Supreme Court relied upon improper factors at sentencing (see People v Hooks, 148 AD3d 930, 931 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1081 [2017]), and that the person presiding over the trial was allegedly not a judge. Considering defendant‘s criminal history and the brutal attack on the victim, we cannot say that imposition of the maximum sentence was harsh or excessive (see People v Wright, 149 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2017]; People v Johnson, 131 AD3d 728, 729 [2015]).
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.