THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JAMES WELLS, Also Known as Ho, Also Known as Eightcho, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York
141 A.D.3d 1013 | 35 N.Y.S.3d 795
In June 2011, defendant, then 31 years old, attended a party in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County, together with several other adult males. The majority of the large group of partygoers were teenagers. Upon discovering that car keys belonging to a vehicle rented by one of defendant‘s companions had disappeared, defendant and his companions interrupted the party and began to physically search the guests for the missing keys before allowing them to leave. Some of the guests objected. An altercation ensued, in which the 15-year-old victim was shot and killed.
Defendant was arrested and charged with the crimes of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), reckless endangerment in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, tampering with physical evidence and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts). Defendant‘s pretrial omnibus motion sought, as pertinent here, to suppress identification testimony and to sever three counts of the indictment. County Court (Drago, J.) denied the motion to sever and, following a combined Wade/Huntley hearing, denied defendant‘s motion to suppress identification testimony. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged. Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.) denied defendant‘s
Initially, we reject defendant‘s assertion that the charge of reckless endangerment in the first degree was duplicitous.1 An indictment count is void for duplicity when it charges more than one offense (see
Relative to this charge, to establish that defendant was guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree, the People were required to prove that, “under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engage[d] in conduct which create[d] a grave risk of death to another person” (
County Court properly denied defendant‘s motion to sever counts 8, 10 and 11 of the indictment.2 “Offenses are joinable if, among other things, they are based upon different criminal transactions but defined by the same or similar statutory provisions, or if proof of either offense would be material and admissible as evidence-in-chief at the trial of the other offense” (People v Rogers, 94 AD3d 1246, 1248 [2012] [citation omitted], lv denied 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; see
These counts were premised upon the same statutes that formed the basis of counts 4 and 9, which charged criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child based upon defendant‘s conduct at the party (see
Defendant‘s pretrial motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. “While the People have the initial burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness in a pretrial identification procedure, it is the defendant who bears the ultimate burden of proving that the procedure was unduly suggestive” (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990] [citation omitted]). Here, the People met their initial burden during the three-day combined Wade/Huntley hearing by presenting the testimony of seven detectives who conducted photographic identification procedures in which 20 witnesses were asked to identify various persons of interest in the shooting, including defendant. Witnesses were interviewed one at a time in various locations and were shown several photo arrays, each of which included a photograph of a person of interest. Two of the arrays included defendant‘s picture as one of a group of six color photographs of the same individuals, with defendant‘s photograph in different positions in each array. The photographs depicted six informally-clothed males of apparently similar age and race, with similar features, hairstyles, expressions and facial hair. The detectives testified that witnesses were asked if they recognized anyone and were instructed, among other things, to pay no attention to differences in the styles of the photographs or to features that could easily be changed. This testimony describing the fairness of the identification procedure was adequate to shift the burden to defendant to establish that the photo arrays were unduly suggestive.
Defendant was required to show that “some characteristic of one picture draws the viewer‘s attention in such a way as to indicate that the police have made a particular selection” (People v Davis, 18 AD3d 1016, 1018 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 805 [2005], quoting People v Yousef, 8 AD3d 820, 821 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 743 [2004]; accord People v Lee, 30 AD3d 760, 762 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 850 [2006]). The fact that the background of defendant‘s picture was lighter than the backgrounds of the others—which varied in color and darkness—did not “create a substantial likelihood that . . . defendant would be singled out for identification” (People v Chipp, 75
County Court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant‘s request to call witnesses at the Wade/Huntley hearing. A defendant does not have an absolute right to call witnesses at such a hearing and may do so “only where the hearing evidence raises substantial issues as to the constitutionality of the identification procedure, where the People‘s evidence is notably incomplete, or where the defendant otherwise establishes a need for the witness‘s testimony” (People v Gant, 26 AD3d 516, 517 [2006] [internal quotation marks, ellipses and citations omitted], lv denied 7 NY3d 756 [2006]; see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d at 337). Here, there was nothing incomplete or constitutionally questionable in the detectives’ testimony relative to the identification procedures. Further, defendant‘s stated reasons for calling witnesses—including possible communication among them—were wholly based on speculation (see People v White, 79 AD3d 1460, 1461 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011]). There was no evidence that the procedures employed created opportunities for improper communication among the witnesses, or that any such communications occurred. The witnesses were interviewed one at a time and were instructed not to tell other witnesses whether they had identified anyone, and the use of two arrays with defendant‘s photograph in different positions minimized the possibility of any witness influencing another (compare People v Ocasio, 134 AD2d 293, 294 [1987]).
We reject defendant‘s challenge to Supreme Court‘s Molineux rulings, which permitted evidence of defendant‘s gang member-
Testimony that defendant threatened potential witnesses and warned that he had caused a witness who “snitch[ed]” on him to be beaten up “was probative because it could be interpreted to reflect [his] consciousness of guilt” (People v Peele, 73 AD3d 1219, 1221 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 894 [2010]; see People v De Vivo, 282 AD2d 770, 772 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 900 [2001]). Notably, Supreme Court minimized any unfair resulting prejudice by giving an appropriate limiting instruction. As for evidence that defendant was a gang member, the People did not allege that the shooting itself was motivated by any gang-related purpose. Nevertheless, evidence that defendant belonged to the Bloods street gang was material, relevant and connected to the crime because it explained the relationship among defendant and his adult companions—who were also Bloods—and the reasons for their cooperation in disrupting the party, fighting with the guests, fleeing together after the shooting, and later reconvening elsewhere (see People v Viera, 133 AD3d 622, 624 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1151 [2016]). Additionally, defendant‘s gang membership provided background information explaining the testimony of certain witnesses that defendant trusted them enough to seek their as-
Next, defendant claims that his convictions for murder in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree are not supported by legally sufficient evidence and are against the weight of the evidence, in that the proof did not establish that he shot the victim or exposed anyone to a risk of serious physical injury. Defendant‘s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved for our review, as he did not raise these specific arguments at trial (see People v March, 96 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1063 [2013]; People v Lozada, 35 AD3d 969, 969-970 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 947 [2007]). “Nevertheless, our weight of the evidence analysis necessarily involves an evaluation of whether all elements of the charged crimes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial” (People v Harden, 134 AD3d 1160, 1160 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 27 NY3d 1133 [June 7, 2016]; see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]).
The credible testimony of the People‘s witnesses, taken together, established that defendant moved to Schenectady in 2010 with three fellow Bloods—the same individuals who later accompanied him to the party where the shooting occurred—to engage in the business of selling drugs on Bridge Street. Defendant resided in his paramour‘s apartment at 811 Bridge Street, where her children also resided, and brought two of the Bloods members who later attended the party from Brooklyn to stay there. The paramour testified that defendant kept several firearms in her bedroom; one of her children, then 13 years old, testified that defendant showed him ammunition and three firearms, one of which was a silver and black gun with a small barrel and a black handle—a description corresponding with the .357 revolver that defendant allegedly possessed during the shooting.
There was testimony from several witnesses who saw defendant with firearms during the days immediately before the shooting, including testimony that, on the night before the party, defendant was seen at 730 Bridge Street—where a friend
Defendant and his companions then headed across the street to the teenagers’ party at 730 Bridge Street, where they continued to drink and acted as bouncers, frisking some of the guests and helping to collect cover charges. A witness testified that he and a friend found a set of car keys in the apartment during the party, determined that the keys belonged to a white vehicle parked nearby and left to seek advice on how to steal the car or its contents without being caught. As previously described, this car had been rented by one of defendant‘s companions, who soon discovered that the keys were missing. After making this discovery, defendant allegedly left the party briefly—long enough, according to the People, to cross the street, get one or more of the firearms he stored at 811 Bridge Street and change his clothing from the white T-shirt he had previously worn to a blue sweater that helped him conceal weapons on his person. One witness who described defendant‘s change of clothing said that, following his return, defendant had to keep adjusting his pants because they seemed to be sagging under a weight.
Several witnesses testified that, among other things, defendant ordered the guests to search for the keys, issued threats, instructed the guests that no one could leave until they were searched, and carried out some of the physically intrusive searches on or near a staircase leading down to the exterior door, while his companions and other individuals searched other guests. At some point, defendant and one of his companions allegedly stationed themselves at the foot of the interior stairwell to block the exterior door and prevent guests who had departed from coming back inside, while others carried out searches near the top of the stairs. When some guests refused to be searched, a brawl broke out among several of the guests and defendant‘s companions in the crowded stairwell. During the ensuing confusion, a witness saw defendant‘s companion hand a “big” gun with a long barrel to defendant, who was then standing near the foot of the stairs. The companion then moved
Witnesses outside saw defendant leave immediately after the shooting, closely followed by his companions. One witness said that defendant was holding two large guns as he left, which he placed in the waist of his pants. Defendant‘s paramour testified that she heard several gunshots from her apartment at 811 Bridge Street. Shortly thereafter, defendant returned alone through a back door, pulled a .44 revolver from his pants, opened its cylinder and told her that he had shot the victim four times. She testified that she saw ammunition in two of the weapon‘s six chambers, while the remainder appeared dark and empty. Defendant then took a bag of belongings and fled, leaving behind items later found by police that included drug paraphernalia, clothing, and the previously-mentioned box of ammunition bearing his fingerprint. He was arrested a month later in Brooklyn. Sixteen months after the shooting, rusted .357 and .44 revolvers were found among debris in a nearby backyard, wrapped in a blue sweater that matched the description of the one that defendant had changed into just before the shooting. The .44 revolver was a long-barreled Smith & Wesson that contained four spent casings and two live rounds of the same type of ammunition that killed the victim and was stored in the ammunition box. The .357 revolver was loaded but had not been fired.
Two inmates who encountered defendant in jail after his arrest testified that he made admissions related to the shooting. One of these inmates said that defendant admitted that he had two guns but fired only one, and that he shot the victim several times, using a revolver. Defendant allegedly told another inmate that he “finished” the victim and placed a box over his head afterward—a box that several witnesses remembered seeing on or near the victim immediately after the incident.
Defendant took the stand and offered an account of the evening in which he admitted, among other things, that he belonged to the Bloods, moved to Schenectady to sell drugs,
We reject defendant‘s assertion that he was deprived of a fair trial by the admission of prejudicial and irrelevant testimony from the victim‘s mother and his basketball coach on the first day of the trial. Supreme Court did not err in admitting this testimony to the limited extent that it served to explain how the victim—who had been at a basketball tournament in New York City earlier that day—came to be present at the party and to describe his demeanor and physical condition just before the event (see People v White, 79 AD3d at 1463). Both witnesses strayed beyond this purpose by offering emotional comments and remarks on such irrelevant subjects as the victim‘s personality; defendant objected to this testimony, and the court promptly sustained the objections and attempted to minimize the prejudicial impact by instructing the jury to disregard some of the remarks (see id.). In view of the brevity of the challenged testimony and the overwhelming other evidence of defendant‘s guilt presented during the seven-week trial, we find that any error was harmless, as there is no “significant probability” that defendant would have been acquitted if the testimony had not been admitted (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975];
Finally, in view of the heinous nature of defendant‘s crimes, his lack of remorse and his extensive prior history of crimes involving firearms and violence, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances that warrant modification of his sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Martin, 136 AD3d 1218, 1220 [2016]; People v Rollins, 51 AD3d 1279, 1282-1283 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 930 [2009]).
Egan Jr., Lynch, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.