People v. Davila
| Decision Date | 29 April 1985 |
| Citation | 108 A.D.2d 108,488 N.Y.S.2d 409 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Rafael DAVILA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
S.G. Farruggio, New York City, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Gerald Allen, Barbara D. Underwood, Michael Gore, Brooklyn, and Barri Bloom, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and TITONE, THOMPSON and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
The primary question presented on this appeal is whether the People presented sufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice's trial testimony, which inculpated the defendant in the death of Fred Aikins. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and therefore affirm.
On March 16, 1979, at approximately 12:10 A.M., Richard Simmons, a New York City Transit Authority bus operator, who had just pulled out of a bus depot, spotted Fred Aikins lying on the ground near a cemetery. Aikins, who appeared to be "hurt bad", was taken to Lutheran Memorial Medical Center where he died at approximately 12:55 A.M. An autopsy was performed later that day, and the medical examiner determined that Aikins died from two bullet wounds "of the face and neck, with involvement of the brain". The wounds were inflicted at a distance of some 6 to 18 inches.
Several hours after Aikins was found, Thomas Bradshaw was taken into custody in connection with Aikins' death. Bradshaw admitted his involvement but accused Rafael Davila, the defendant, of actually shooting Aikins. The defendant was also taken into custody and, though he admitted being with Aikins, Bradshaw, and a third person, during the evening of March 15, he denied any participation in the homicide. He further denied any knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the homicide, including the homicide itself. The defendant suggested that sometime after he and Bradshaw parted company that evening, the latter, acting alone, might have killed Aikins.
The defendant was released from custody after his interrogation by an Assistant District Attorney. However, Bradshaw was arrested and charged in connection with Aikins' death. He subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 5 years to 15 years. As part of the plea agreement, Bradshaw promised to testify against the defendant.
By Kings County Indictment Number 289 4/80, the defendant was accused of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. At the ensuing trial the People principally relied upon Bradshaw's testimony which not only implicated the defendant in the crimes charged but identified him as the person who twice shot Aikins. Bradshaw was employed at the time in question by the Atlantic Boiler Company (Atlantic) and supplemented his income by selling marijuana. The defendant was also employed by Atlantic, and Bradshaw considered him to be a friend.
According to Bradshaw, on March 15, 1979, at 4:00 or 4:30 P.M., he purchased a gun for protection from one Julio Vasquez, a former Atlantic employee. The gun cost $100, some of which he borrowed from the defendant. Bradshaw brought the gun to Atlantic's basement and showed it to the defendant. Bradshaw and the defendant "had a few beers" and talked "about the gun, how it works".
Later that same afternoon, Vasquez and "three other guys", stole money from Bradshaw at gunpoint. Bradshaw had intend to use the money to purchase a color television from Vasquez, which Vasquez had earlier offered to sell to him.
After reporting the incident to the police Bradshaw returned to the basement and complained to the defendant about how he was "getting ripped off". Among others, he mentioned one incident in which Aikins allegedly stole some marijuana from him. The defendant replied: " 'Why don't you just take [Atlantic's] van and we can go and get him.' " Bradshaw decided "to go out and see [Aikins] to see if he had any of [his] money". The defendant tested the gun by firing it twice into the back yard, commenting that "it was powerful".
At approximately 6:30 or 7:00 P.M., Bradshaw and the defendant took the van out of the shop. The defendant had the gun. They "rode around" for some 30 minutes and went to Billie Bartlett's house. Bartlett's mother told Bradshaw that her son was working at a delicatessen and gave him the address. Bradshaw wanted "to ask [Bartlett] where [Aikins] was". Bartlett and Aikins were cousins.
At approximately 9:45 P.M., Bradshaw and the defendant arrived at the delicatessen. Bradshaw entered the store alone and briefly spoke with Bartlett about "going to * * * a party". Bradshaw told Bartlett that he would wait for him in the van; Bartlett left the delicatessen at about 10:10 P.M., carrying a six-pack of beer, entered the van and drove to Shore Road in Brooklyn with Bradshaw and the defendant.
While they were drinking the beer, Bradshaw asked Bartlett if he knew where Aikins was; Bartlett responded that he might be at the Lighthouse Bar or at home. The threesome drove to the bar and, upon discovering that Aikins was not there, they then drove to Aikins' house. Bradshaw asked Bartlett "to go in and get [Aikins]" and instructed Bartlett not to disclose that Bradshaw was waiting for him in the van. Bradshaw wanted to surprise him. Moments later, Aikins emerged from his house with Bartlett and agreed "to party" with Bradshaw, the defendant, and Bartlett. They purchased another six-pack of beer and drove to Shore Road and 92nd Street in Brooklyn where they "drank the six pack and smoked a few joints".
After some 45 minutes, Bradshaw drove to the Lighthouse Bar, and "dropped off" Bartlett and Aikins at the latter's request. Bradshaw parked the van in a bus stop and the defendant asked him if he wanted the defendant to get Aikins out of the bar. Bradshaw responded, " 'All right bring him out and we will talk to him' [about] [t]he money he owe[s] me". The defendant returned to the van with Aikins 5 or 10 minutes later. Aikins asked Bradshaw "what do [you] have to get high with [?]"; Bradshaw responded, " 'Don't worry' ", whereupon both the defendant and Aikins re-entered the van.
Bradshaw then drove Aikins and the defendant to a school yard where they parked. A couple of minutes later Bradshaw asked Aikins about his money. Aikins replied that "he didn't have any money now". Suddenly, the defendant, who was in the rear of the van between the driver's and passenger's seats, shot Aikins in the back of the neck.
Nervous, Bradshaw drove the van from the school yard in the direction of a cemetery. He went through two red lights and could hear Aikins breathing. As they approached the cemetery, the defendant shot Aikins a second time. The defendant was laughing and said " " At the cemetery, the defendant "leaned over [the] passenger seat * * * opened up the door * * * pushed [Aikins] out * * * and he closed the door".
From there, Bradshaw and the defendant returned to Atlantic. Bradshaw left the van to open the garage door. The defendant, who was then in the passenger's seat, . Bradshaw parked the van in the garage and closed the door.
At the defendant's direction, Bradshaw filled a bucket with hot water which they used to clean the inside of the van. According to Bradshaw, the defendant said, " 'Here, take this rag, clean off the steering wheel, the insides of the van, so there wouldn't be no [sic] fingerprints' ". In the meantime, the defendant soaked up Aikins' blood, all of which was on the passenger's seat, with two nearby rags. After all apparent traces of the blood were removed, the defendant put the rags in a bag and "dumped [it] across the street" in an empty lot. The defendant told Bradshaw not to worry and promised to " 'come in early tomorrow and * * * we will steam the van down so there will be no blood left' ". The defendant left Atlantic at 2:00 A.M. or 2:30 A.M. with the gun which had been in his possession throughout the evening.
Bradshaw closed the shop after the defendant and, instead of going upstairs to his apartment, he "just walked the streets" until approximately 5:30 A.M. when he returned to Atlantic for work. That same morning, at 9:00 or 9:30, he was taken to a police station. Bradshaw told the police where they could find the bag containing the bloody rags, having seen the precise spot the bag was thrown by the defendant.
The People also offered the testimony of William Bartlett, Aikins' cousin, who was not implicated in the homicide. He substantiated many of the details of Bradshaw's testimony up to 11:00 or 11:15 P.M., approximately one hour before the crime was committed, when Bartlett and Aikins were left off at a bar by Bradshaw and the defendant. According to Bartlett, Aikins left the bar alone. Medical evidence established a genetic consistency between blood found on the passenger seat of the van and the deceased's blood which "would exclude approximately 99 percent of the population".
Finally, the People presented the testimony of the detective in charge of the investigation into Aikins' death, Fred E. Hazel, and a Kings County Assistant District Attorney, Jon Besunder, concerning two statements purportedly made to them by the defendant after he was taken into custody on March 16, 1979, and was twice advised of his constitutional rights (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694).
According to Detective Hazel, the defendant stated that he and Bradshaw had been "riding around in a company van" looking for someone. They stopped at a delicatessen where they purchased some beer and an acquaintance of Bradshaw's joined them....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Konigsberg
...530, 489 N.Y.S.2d 619) and whether, if true, it tended to connect defendant with the commission of the crime ( see, People v. Davila, 108 A.D.2d 108, 115, 488 N.Y.S.2d 409). Finally, with regard to the charge, defendant argues that County Court usurped the jury's function by passing upon th......
-
People v. Milea
...While the Court of Appeals in People v. Moses, 63 N.Y.2d 299, 308, 482 N.Y.S.2d 228, 472 N.E.2d 4, and this court in People v. Davila, 108 A.D.2d 108, 488 N.Y.S.2d 409, have recognized that this species of evidence is inherently weak, the record is clear that the conviction did not rest ent......
-
People v. Koltun
...36 N.Y.2d 29, 34, 364 N.Y.S.2d 855, 324 N.E.2d 334 ; People v. Ruberto, 10 N.Y.2d 428, 224 N.Y.S.2d 1, 179 N.E.2d 848 ; People v. Davila, 108 A.D.2d 108, 488 N.Y.S.2d 409 ). The defendant's statements to the police were relevant, since they demonstrated his consciousness of guilt. He was co......
-
People v. Burton
...that his accomplices were telling the truth (see, People v. Moses, 63 N.Y.2d 299, 482 N.Y.S.2d 228, 472 N.E.2d 4; People v. Davila, 108 A.D.2d 108, 488 N.Y.S.2d 409). The contention raised in the defendant's pro se brief that the cross-examination by the prosecutor violated the court's Sand......
-
Past and future: attempts to prospectively alienate property.
...1904) (court upheld bank account in beneficiary's name as a valid revocable inter vivos trust). For life reservations, see Gruen, 488 N.Y.S.2d at 409 (court validated present gift of future vested remainder with life reservation in (52.) Gifts frequently fail for lack of delivery. See Rose ......