People v. Coleman,

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtMULVEY, J.
Citation58 N.Y.S.3d 631,151 A.D.3d 1385
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ashylaun COLEMAN, Appellant.
Decision Date22 June 2017

151 A.D.3d 1385
58 N.Y.S.3d 631

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Ashylaun COLEMAN, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

June 22, 2017.


58 N.Y.S.3d 633

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, EGAN JR., DEVINE and MULVEY, JJ.

MULVEY, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), rendered July 11, 2014 in Schenectady County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of attempted gang assault in the first degree and attempted assault in the first degree.

In September 2013, defendant, along with three other individuals, attacked the victim in the middle of the street. Defendant was arrested and charged by indictment with one count of gang assault in the first degree and two counts of assault in the first degree.1 Following a jury trial, defendant was found not guilty on each of the three counts, but was convicted of two lesser included offenses, attempted gang assault in the first degree and attempted assault in the first degree, both class C violent felonies. Defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 12 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision on each count, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Defendant first contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Specifically, he argues that the evidence did not support a finding of intent to cause serious physical injury. In reviewing whether a conviction is against the weight of the evidence, we first determine whether a different verdict would have been reasonable and, if so, then, "like the trier of fact below, [we] weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord People v. Lawrence, 141 A.D.3d 828, 829, 35 N.Y.S.3d 742 [2016], lvs. denied 28 N.Y.3d 1071, 1073, 47 N.Y.S.3d 229, 69 N.E.3d 1025 [2016] ). In this review, "we necessarily consider whether all of the elements of the charged crimes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt" ( people v. thorpe, 141 a.d.3d 927, 928, 35 N.y.s.3d 769 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 1031, 45 N.Y.S.3d 383, 68 N.E.3d 112 [2016] ; see People v. Reeves, 124 A.D.3d 1068, 1068, 1 N.Y.S.3d 547 [2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1076, 12 N.Y.S.3d 627, 34 N.E.3d 378 [2015] ).

As is relevant here, a conviction for gang assault in the first degree requires "intent to cause serious physical injury to another person and when aided by two or more persons actually present" ( Penal Law § 120.07 ). As charged in the indictment, assault in the first degree has the same element of intent to cause serious physical injury and, as relevant here, "by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument" ( Penal Law § 120.10[1] ). To support a conviction of the crime of attempted gang assault in the first degree and attempted assault in the first degree,

58 N.Y.S.3d 634

the People had to demonstrate that defendant "engage[d] in conduct which tends to effect the commission of such crime" ( Penal Law § 110.00 ). Here, we are concerned with the attempt to commit the crimes and, therefore, only address the element of defendant's intent to cause serious physical injury, and not whether such injury actually resulted (compare People v. Armstrong, 125 A.D.3d 1493, 1494–1495, 3 N.Y.S.3d 861 [2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1069, 12 N.Y.S.3d 620, 34 N.E.3d 371 [2015] ). "[C]riminal intent may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances" ( People v. Madore, 145 A.D.3d 1440, 1442, 46 N.Y.S.3d 300 [2016], lv. denied 29 N.Y.3d 1034, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, –––N.E.3d –––– [2017] ; see People v. Mike, 283 A.D.2d 989, 724 N.Y.S.2d 389 [2001], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 904, 730 N.Y.S.2d 802, 756 N.E.2d 90 [2001] ). "Intent may also be inferred from the natural and probable consequences of defendant's conduct" ( People v. Madore, 145 A.D.3d at 1442, 46 N.Y.S.3d 300 [citation omitted]; see People v. Roman, 13 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 787 N.Y.S.2d 568 [2004], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 802, 795 N.Y.S.2d 178, 828 N.E.2d 94 [2005] ).

Detective Eric Clifford testified that, during his patrol duties on the day in question, he observed a group of individuals "stomping on top of somebody" in the street and that he recognized defendant as one of the individuals involved. A surveillance camera captured the incident and a recording from that camera was played at trial. The recording shows defendant repeatedly raising his leg and stomping on the victim with his heavy work boots as the victim lay defenseless on the ground. Photographs of the boots were admitted into evidence along with photographs of the victim's injuries, which show a laceration above the victim's right eye and abrasions about his face. The eyewitness account by Clifford, the video recording of the incident, medical testimony of the responders and the emergency room personnel, and the photographs of the victim's injuries clearly support the jury's conclusion that defendant intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim (see People v. Chowdhury, 22 A.D.3d 596, 597, 802 N.Y.S.2d 252 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 753, 810 N.Y.S.2d 421, 843 N.E.2d 1161 [2005] ; People v. Mahoney, 6 A.D.3d 1104, 1104, 776 N.Y.S.2d 402 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 660, 782 N.Y.S.2d 702, 816 N.E.2d 575 [2004] ). The evidence also supported the conclusion that two or more persons were present and that the assault involved a dangerous instrument, i.e., the " boots or shoes worn while kicking [the] victim" ( People v. Hill, 130 A.D.3d 1305, 1306, 13 N.Y.S.3d 705 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 999, 38 N.Y.S.3d 109, 59 N.E.3d 1221 [2016] ; see People v. Ingram, 95 A.D.3d 1376, 1377, 943 N.Y.S.2d 311 [2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 974, 950 N.Y.S.2d 357, 973 N.E.2d 767 [2012] ). While a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, "viewing the foregoing evidence in a neutral light and according deference to ‘the jury's unique opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor’ " ( People v. Thorpe, 141 A.D.3d at 930–931, 35 N.Y.S.3d 769, quoting People v. Lanier, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • People v. Alexander M. W., 110080
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 1, 2018
    ...any perceived prejudicial effect and they were properly admitted as exceptions to the hearsay doctrine (see People v. Coleman, 151 A.D.3d 1385, 1387–1388, 58 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1125, 64 N.Y.S.3d 675, 86 N.E.3d 567 [2017] ). We have reviewed defendant's remaining eviden......
  • People v. Cummings, 107295
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 4, 2018
    ...controlled buy (see id. ; see also People v. Edwards , 14 N.Y.3d 733, 735, 899 N.Y.S.2d 65, 925 N.E.2d 867 [2010] ; People v. Coleman , 151 A.D.3d 1385, 1388, 58 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1125, 64 N.Y.S.3d 675, 86 N.E.3d 567 [2017] ). Finally, contrary to defendant's pro se c......
  • People v. Daniels, 109319
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • July 3, 2019
    ..., 166 A.D.3d 1292, 1293, 88 N.Y.S.3d 665 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1207, 99 N.Y.S.3d 208, 122 N.E.3d 1121 [2019] ; People v. Coleman , 151 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 58 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1125, 64 N.Y.S.3d 675, 86 N.E.3d 567 [2017] )."When undertaking a weight of the evidenc......
  • People v. Wager, 109549
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 13, 2019
    ...may be admitted under either the excited utterance or present sense impression exceptions to the hearsay rule (see People v. Coleman, 151 A.D.3d 1385, 1387, 58 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1125, 64 N.Y.S.3d 675, 86 N.E.3d 567 [2017] ). The present sense impression hearsay except......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • People v. Alexander M. W., 110080
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 1, 2018
    ...any perceived prejudicial effect and they were properly admitted as exceptions to the hearsay doctrine (see People v. Coleman, 151 A.D.3d 1385, 1387–1388, 58 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1125, 64 N.Y.S.3d 675, 86 N.E.3d 567 [2017] ). We have reviewed defendant's remaining eviden......
  • People v. Cummings, 107295
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 4, 2018
    ...controlled buy (see id. ; see also People v. Edwards , 14 N.Y.3d 733, 735, 899 N.Y.S.2d 65, 925 N.E.2d 867 [2010] ; People v. Coleman , 151 A.D.3d 1385, 1388, 58 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1125, 64 N.Y.S.3d 675, 86 N.E.3d 567 [2017] ). Finally, contrary to defendant's pro se c......
  • People v. Dowling, 110709
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • July 7, 2022
    ...knew the victim was being housed in the Albany County Jail but made no attempts to produce or subpoena him (compare People v. Coleman, 151 A.D.3d 1385, 1388, 58 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1125, 64 N.Y.S.3d 675, 86 N.E.3d 567 [2017] ; People v. Womack, 143 A.D.3d 1171, 1174, 41......
  • People v. Daniels, 109319
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • July 3, 2019
    ..., 166 A.D.3d 1292, 1293, 88 N.Y.S.3d 665 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1207, 99 N.Y.S.3d 208, 122 N.E.3d 1121 [2019] ; People v. Coleman , 151 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 58 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1125, 64 N.Y.S.3d 675, 86 N.E.3d 567 [2017] )."When undertaking a weight of the evidenc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT