People v. Ficarrota
| Decision Date | 22 December 1997 |
| Citation | 91 N.Y.2d 244,691 N.E.2d 1017,668 N.Y.S.2d 993 |
| Parties | , 691 N.E.2d 1017, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,114 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Joseph FICARROTA, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
In the early hours of August 27, 1993, Aiman Badawi was discovered lying in a remote, desolate location in Queens, semiconscious and covered in his own blood, the victim of multiple gunshot wounds. Among his other injuries, Badawi suffered a head wound from a bullet that entered his right temple, passed across both frontal lobes of his brain and exited his left temple. This injury left Badawi with no memory of the moments immediately preceding the shots, although he was able to recall the pertinent events that occurred prior to that point.
Defendant Joseph Ficarrota and Angelo Boccadisi, who employed defendant as his bodyguard, were jointly indicted for the attempted murder and first degree assault of Badawi. Boccadisi absconded and the case proceeded to joint trial, Boccadisi being tried in absentia.
At the trial, Badawi testified that, in 1992, he went into business with a woman named Han Ye Yang (also known as Mimi), owning and operating two booths at Caesar's Bay Bazaar in Queens where they sold scarfs, handbags and other items. In July of the same year, after Badawi had loaned Mimi $10,000 and before the loan was repaid, Boccadisi (who is Mimi's ex-husband and the father of her child) and defendant (who was introduced to Badawi as Phil) came to see Badawi at Caesar's Bay. Boccadisi informed Badawi that one of the booths had been closed by "connections." Defendant then opened his suit jacket, brandishing a gun. He grabbed Badawi by the collar, lifting him, and threatened: "You better listen to Angelo because you have no idea what is going to happen to you." Later the same day, Badawi discovered threatening messages on his answering machine from Boccadisi, warning him to leave Mimi alone and not to expect to get his money back.
In May of 1993, Badawi arranged to sell his share of the business to Mimi and one of her friends. After a dispute arose over payment for the booths, Badawi removed approximately $13,000 worth of merchandise from one of the booths without permission from Mimi or her partner. Mimi was enraged and confronted Badawi, kicking him and screaming at him for stealing the merchandise.
Later that summer, Mimi apparently requested the intervention of her ex-husband, Boccadisi, in connection with her dispute with Badawi. On or about August 19, 1993, Mimi asked Badawi to meet a buyer for the merchandise in Badawi's possession. When Badawi arrived at the designated meeting place, however, only Boccadisi was present. Boccadisi told Badawi that he had a potential buyer for the merchandise and asked Badawi to meet him again the following evening and to bring some sample handbags. The next evening, Boccadisi appeared and took Badawi to a restaurant, stopping first to pick up defendant, who greeted Badawi and apologized for his behavior the previous summer. Over dinner and drinks, Boccadisi initiated a discussion about their going into business together. He told Badawi to scout out some potential locations in Manhattan for their proposed business. After paying the bill, Boccadisi suggested that they meet again that Thursday, August 26, 1993, for further discussion of the business venture. The next morning, defendant went alone to see Badawi to return the sample merchandise and to finalize the arrangements for the Thursday meeting.
On August 26, 1993, Boccadisi and defendant picked up Badawi and, at Boccadisi's direction, visited several of the locations that Badawi identified as possible sites for the proposed business venture. Afterwards, Boccadisi and defendant took Badawi to a bar for a drink. On the way back from Manhattan, defendant and Boccadisi continued to talk about the business enterprise, deciding on a site and discussing how long it would take defendant to get the place ready. At one point, Boccadisi asked Badawi if he minded taking the Midtown Tunnel and, when Badawi did not object, Boccadisi took the tunnel, but then exited, detouring into a secluded area of Queens.
When Boccadisi stopped the car, Badawi, frightened by surroundings which he described as "worse than an Egyptian desert," asked the reason for the stop. Boccadisi replied, "engine trouble." Badawi did not believe him and became very nervous, whereupon defendant began patting Badawi on the shoulder. Defendant said, "Aiman, you take care of yourself," and started to get out of the car. Alarmed, Badawi asked where defendant was going, pointing out that the area was dark and there was no other available means of transportation. Defendant placated, "I have to go somewhere, and, please don't hesitate to bring your girlfriend or your fiancee, if you have one, to my restaurant and the meal will be on the house." Badawi then watched defendant walk away from the car.
While defendant was speaking to Badawi, Boccadisi left the car, walked to the rear and opened the trunk. He reappeared wearing a white jacket which he held closed with one of his hands. Badawi's recollection of the night of August 26, 1993 does not extend beyond this point. However, he testified that after being released from the hospital, he went back to Caesar's Bay to find Mimi. When she saw Badawi, she began shaking and exclaimed, "you are still alive?"
Several months later, Badawi received $2,500 in the mail from Boccadisi, unsolicited. The police then arranged for the recording of telephone conversations between Badawi and Boccadisi in which the latter mixed implicit threats and promises of reward to induce Badawi to refrain from implicating him and defendant in the shooting.
At trial, defendant denied any participation in the crime and testified that he and Boccadisi were at his mother's home at the time the shooting occurred. His mother corroborated this testimony. Nevertheless, the jury convicted both defendant and Boccadisi of attempted murder in the second degree and two counts of assault in the first degree (see, Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25[1]; § 120.10[1]-[2] ). The Appellate Division reversed defendant's conviction, holding that there was no evidence in the record that defendant intentionally assisted Boccadisi in shooting the victim or that he shared a community of purpose with Boccadisi (234 A.D.2d 383, 651 N.Y.S.2d 548). A Judge of this Court granted the People leave to appeal, and we now reverse.
The issue before us is whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Specifically, we must decide whether the Appellate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Harris
...rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt” ( People v. Ficarrota, 91 N.Y.2d 244, 248, 668 N.Y.S.2d 993, 691 N.E.2d 1017 [1997] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 62, 736 N.Y.S.2d 64......
-
People v. McDonald
...Robinson, 90 A.D.2d at 251, 457 N.Y.S.2d 347 ). The People offered no motive for the crime (cf. People v. Ficarrota, 91 N.Y.2d 244, 249, 668 N.Y.S.2d 993, 691 N.E.2d 1017 [1997] ), and the evidence indicating that defendant was staring at the victim 40 minutes before the shooting and that d......
-
People v. Carpenter
...the phone and assured him that the transaction was legitimate and that Jones was acting in good faith (see People v. Ficarrota, 91 N.Y.2d 244, 249, 668 N.Y.S.2d 993, 691 N.E.2d 1017 ). Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt,......
-
In re Chakelton M.
...909 N.Y.S.2d 382). The test is no different when the evidence supporting the fact-finding is circumstantial ( cf. People v. Ficarrota, 91 N.Y.2d 244, 248–249, 668 N.Y.S.2d 993, 691 N.E.2d 1017; People v. Rossey, 89 N.Y.2d 970, 971–972, 655 N.Y.S.2d 861, 678 N.E.2d 473; People v. Cabey, 85 N......