People v. Gillette

• Decision Date: 26 December 2019
• Docket Number: 110260
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher C. GILLETTE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

178 A.D.3d 1278
116 N.Y.S.3d 755

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Christopher C. GILLETTE, Appellant.

110260

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

Calendar Date: November 19, 2019
Decided and Entered: December 26, 2019

116 N.Y.S.3d 757

Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant.

Patrick A. Perfetti, District Attorney, Cortland (Elizabeth McGrath of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Clark, J.

178 A.D.3d 1278

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.), rendered January 11, 2018, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree, conspiracy

178 A.D.3d 1279

in the fifth degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree.

Based upon allegations that he was involved in the production of methamphetamine in an apartment in the City of Cortland, Cortland County, defendant was indicted on charges of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree, conspiracy in the fifth degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree. Following a jury trial, defendant was found not guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, but was otherwise convicted as charged. Defendant was thereafter sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of four years, followed by two years of postrelease supervision, on his conviction of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree and to lesser concurrent terms of incarceration on his remaining convictions. Defendant appeals, and we reverse.

We agree with defendant that the trial evidence was not legally sufficient to support his convictions of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree, conspiracy in the fifth degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree. In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views the proof in the light most favorable to the People and determines whether there is any " ‘valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the [charged] crime[s] proved beyond a reasonable doubt’ " ( People v. Acosta, 80 N.Y.2d 665, 672, 593 N.Y.S.2d 978, 609 N.E.2d 518 [1993], quoting

116 N.Y.S.3d 758

People v. Steinberg, 79 N.Y.2d 673, 681–682, 584 N.Y.S.2d 770, 595 N.E.2d 845 [1992] ).

To convict defendant of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree, as that crime was charged in the indictment, the People were required to prove that defendant possessed, at the same time and location, "[t]wo or more items of laboratory equipment and two or more precursors, chemical reagents or solvents in any combination," with the "intent to use, or knowing that another intends to use[,] each such product to unlawfully manufacture, prepare or produce methamphetamine" ( Penal Law § 220.73[1] ). For the conviction of conspiracy in the fifth degree, as that crime was charged in the indictment, the People had to prove that, with intent that conduct constituting a felony be performed, defendant agreed "with one or more persons" to engage in or cause the performance of conduct constituting the felony of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree and that, in furtherance of the conspiracy, at least one of the

178 A.D.3d 1280

conspirators committed the overt act of possessing items to cause the performance of the felony conduct ( Penal Law § 105.05[1] ; see Penal Law § 105.20 ; People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 149, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 [2005] ). Finally, to establish reckless endangerment in the second degree, the People had to prove that defendant "recklessly engage[d] in conduct which create[d] a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person" ( Penal Law § 120.20 ).

The trial evidence established that, on the evening of December 9, 2016, members of the City of Cortland Police Department arrived at the apartment in response to a 911 call, wherein the building's owner reported his suspicions of possible criminal conduct based upon his observations, including numerous open windows and the use of a window fan despite the frigid temperature. The responding police officers testified that, upon arrival, they noticed a strong chemical odor consistent with methamphetamine. They testified that, as they approached the apartment, they were greeted by one of the apartment's occupants, Jeffrey Stevens, who was covered in black soot and stated that someone had brought a one-pot methamphetamine lab to the apartment, but that he made that person leave. The officers testified that, based on Stevens' statement and the circumstances, they evacuated the apartment and summoned the fire department. The officers stated that five individuals ultimately exited the apartment – defendant, Stevens, Precious Short, Daniel Gardner and Casey Schunk.

The evidence established that members of the Contaminated Crime Scene Emergency Response Team thereafter conducted a search of the apartment and discovered two active one-pot methamphetamine labs, as well as multiple discarded spent one-pot labs. The team also seized – from various areas of the extremely cluttered and disorganized apartment, including the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living room – various laboratory equipment, precursors, chemical reagents and solvents used in the manufacture of...