People v. Ahmed, 2009 NY Slip Op 31515(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/9/2009)
| Decision Date | 09 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 3772/2008,3772/2008 |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 31515 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, v. SALAH AHMED, Defendant, |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Defendant stands convicted on April 28, 2009, after jury trial in Supreme Court, Kings County, of Assault in the First Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. (J. Ingram). Defendant has filed a motion with this Court pursuant to C.P.L. § 330.30 seeking an order of this Court setting aside his conviction on the grounds that (1) as a matter of law Defendant's use of force was justified in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of a burglary; (2) the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to prove that the complainant suffered serious physical injury, and (3) the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support the jury's determination that Defendant's conduct was the direct cause of the complainant's injury. The People oppose his application in its entirety.
On April 13, 2008, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Bunkless Bovian and two of his friends, Joshua Bloomfield and Finesse Young, entered a bodega at 1569 East New York Avenue, Brooklyn. Two clerks were working behind the counter. Hazem Kassim was working at the deli and Abubaker Khalid was at the register. Bunkless and his two friends were standing in front of the counter waiting to order food. At one point, Joshua Bloomfield and Hazem Kassim became embroiled in a verbal argument. Joshua invited Mr. Kassim to come outside to fight him. Instead, Joshua and Mr. Kassim met at the side of the counter. Joshua testified that Mr. Kassim grabbed his shirt and pulled his hair. Finesse tried to grab Mr. Kassim's arm and Bunkless joined in the physical altercation. While the People's witnesses, including Finesse, stated that Finesse did not possess any weapons, Mr. Kassim testified that Finesse possessed a razor blade and slashed him across the forearm and wrist. Mr. Kassim testified that Bunkless knocked him to the floor and proceeded to kick and stomp him. Mr. Kassim grabbed a large butcher knife and pointed it in the direction of Bunkless. According to the People's witnesses, Bunkless backed away from Mr. Kassim. At this point, Defendant emerged from a back room and grabbed Bunkless from behind and struck him in the head with a hammer as Bunkless tried to exit the store. Bunkless exited the store and collapsed across the street. He was taken to Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center ("Brookdale"), suffering injuries to his head, including a fractured skull. He remained in the pediatric intensive care unit on life support for four days. Bunkless received nine staples to close the wound to his head. He testified that he continues to suffer from slightly slurred speech, headaches, short and long term memory loss and learning disabilities.
Pursuant to C.P.L. § 330.30(1), a verdict may be set aside on "any ground appearing in the record which, if raised upon an appeal from a perspective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court." While C.P.L. §330.30 transforms a trial court into a "quasi" intermediate appellate court, unlike an intermediate appellate court, a trial court determining a C.P.L. § 330.30 motion is not vested with discretionary "interest of justice" jurisdiction. CPL 470.15(3)(c); People v. McClain, 12 Misc.3d 1185(A)(Kings County 2006). According to C.P.L. § 330.30(1), the Court can disturb the verdict prior to sentence only if the grounds for the motion would require an appellate court to reverse the conviction as a matter of law. People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61 (2001). This Court cannot set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, rather, it must determine only "whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial in order to uphold the verdict." People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490 (1987). A Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495.
Furthermore, in order for this Court to consider issues of law in a C.P.L. § 330.30 motion, those issues must have been properly preserved before this Court by a sufficiently specific obj ection or other application for relief. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d at 61; People v. Medina, 523 N.Y.2d 951, 953 (1981)( that defendant must request curative instruction or move for mistrial in order in order to preserve issue). This Court cannot grant Defendant's C.P.L. § 330.30 motion when he has unpreserved claims. People v. Everson, 100 N.Y.2d 609 (2003).
Defendant moves this Court to set aside the verdict on the basis that his defense of justification would require a reversal of the judgment as a matter of law. However, since Defendant did not properly preserve this argument before this Court by a specific obj ection or other application for relief, this Court cannot consider it. At the end of the People's case, Defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal based on the argument that the People failed to prove serious physical injury; that the People failed to prove the Defendant intended to cause serious physical injury; and that the People failed to prove the Defendant was the direct cause of Bunkless' injury. Defendant never alerted this Court to the specific claim that Defendant was justified as a matter of law. Therefore, Defendant's complaint about the People's failure to disprove justification as a matter of law has not been properly preserved before this Court by a sufficiently specific obj ection or other application for relief and this claim cannot be made for the first time in a C.P.L. § 330.30 motion. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d at 61; Medina, 523 N.Y.2d at 953.
Even if this Court were to consider this argument on the merits, it would still deny this branch of Defendant's motion. When a defendant raises the defense of justification at trial, the People v. Craig, 78 N.Y.2d 616,619 (1991). Justification consists of both subjective and objective elements. The subjective element relates to whether the defendant believed that the use of deadly force was necessary. Under the objective prong, the jury considers whether a reasonable person in defendant' s circumstances would have believed that deadly the force was required. People v. Umali, 10 N. Y.3d 417 (2008). The People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not believe deadly physical force was necessary or that a reasonable person in the same situation would not have perceived that deadly force was necessary. People v. Goetze, 68 N.Y.2d 96,115 (1986).
Defendant claims that there was overwhelming evidence to suggest that a burglary was in progress, that Defendant reasonably believed that a burglary was in progress and that Defendant reasonably believed that deadly physical force was necessary to terminate the burglary. During the trial, the People presented evidence through numerous eyewitnesses that, rather than a burglary, there was a mutual fight between Joshua Bloomfield and Hazem Kassim. While Mr. Kassim testified that Finesse Young struck him with a razor, the testimony of the People's witnesses contradicted his claim. At some point, Defendant became involved, striking Bunkless Bovian in the head with a hammer. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the jury could conclude that Defendant did not reasonably believe that a burglary was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial