People v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 02 April 2015
• Docket Number: 105770.
• Citation: 127 A.D.3d 1243,6 N.Y.S.3d 707,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02804
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jeremiah HAMILTON, Also Known as Kellan Brown, Also Known as Havoc, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

127 A.D.3d 1243
6 N.Y.S.3d 707
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02804

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Jeremiah HAMILTON, Also Known as Kellan Brown, Also Known as Havoc, Appellant.

105770.

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

April 2, 2015.

6 N.Y.S.3d 709

Cynthia Feathers, Glens Falls, for appellant.

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

Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, ROSE and LYNCH, JJ.

Opinion

GARRY, J.

127 A.D.3d 1243

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), rendered October 24, 2012, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree.

In September 2008, the victim was shot and killed in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County while standing close to an individual with whom defendant had quarreled earlier that day. Defendant was indicted on charges of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree. Following a jury trial, he was convicted as charged and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 40 years to life, plus five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that his convictions for murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree are not supported by legally sufficient evidence and are against the weight of the evidence. To convict defendant of murder in the second degree, the People were required to prove that “[w]ith intent to cause the death of another person, he cause[d] the death of such person or of a third person” (Penal Law § 125.25[1] ). The conviction for attempted murder in the second degree required proof that “with the intent to cause the death of another person, [defendant] engage[d] in conduct which tend [ed] to effect commission of that crime” (People v. Fernandez, 88 N.Y.2d 777, 783, 650 N.Y.S.2d 625, 673 N.E.2d 910 [1996] ; see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25[1] ).

Taken together, the trial testimony of multiple witnesses established that a dispute erupted between defendant and Victor Toomer while they were playing dice in

6 N.Y.S.3d 710

the street with several other men. Defendant allegedly exclaimed, “You cheated me” and punched Toomer. Defendant was chased down the street by Toomer and the other men and escaped, warning that

127 A.D.3d 1244

he would be back. Defendant went to a house in an adjoining neighborhood, where he asked for a gun, stating that “somebody around the corner was trying to play him” and that he was “going to go over there and take care of it.” An alleged leader of the Bloods gang directed another man to give defendant the gun and directed the victim to accompany defendant when he returned to the street where Toomer was, to “make sure he was all right.” When they returned to the scene of the dice game, the victim—who had a friendly relationship with Toomer—crossed the street and began speaking with him, trying to mediate the dispute. Meanwhile, defendant remained on the other side of the street and, according to Toomer's testimony, “[took] cover behind [a] car.” Toomer and the victim stood close together as they were speaking, and Toomer asked the victim what he was there to do. The victim responded, “I didn't know it was you,” and said that he wanted to settle the disagreement. Toomer then saw defendant “duck a little bit under the car” and then “come over the car and start[ ] shooting.” Witnesses heard several gunshots. One witness saw defendant “crouch down” behind the car just before the gunshots rang out, and another saw defendant fire the gun. The victim was struck in the head by a bullet and fell to the ground. Toomer removed a gun from the victim's waistband and fired at defendant, who fled. Defendant then allegedly returned to the house where he had obtained the gun and returned it to the owner after wiping it down. When asked about the victim's whereabouts, defendant allegedly claimed that he “ran the other way.”

A detective who investigated the crime scene found two .25 caliber shell casings near a car across the street from the victim's body, as well as several .22 caliber casings closer to the body. He opined that the person who fired the .25 caliber weapon was standing near the car and across the street from the victim. Two days later, police stopped the man who had given defendant the gun for an unrelated infraction and found that he was carrying a .25 caliber handgun. Subsequent testing revealed that a bullet test-fired from this gun was consistent with the projectile found in the victim's head.

Defendant fled to Pennsylvania, where he was subsequently arrested. He told police that he was on the street where the victim was shot, but claimed that he was smoking marihuana with a friend and fled when he heard the gunshots. A woman who was dating defendant at the time of the shooting testified that he told her that he got into a dispute with another “kid” while playing dice, and that after defendant returned to the

127 A.D.3d 1245

scene, the victim “got in the middle trying to play peacemaker.” Defendant said that the other “kid” fired a gun at defendant, and he fired back and ran away. A witness who was incarcerated with defendant testified that he asked defendant whether he had shot the victim and defendant responded, “[C]ome on, like he shouldn't have been trying to play peacemaker in the process of me letting it go.” The witness said that defendant made a shooting motion with his hand while he said “letting it go,” and that defendant added that he “didn't mean for it to go down the way it [did].”

Defendant argues that the evidence establishes that his target was Toomer, not the victim, and that the People neither proved that he intended to kill the victim, nor that he intended to kill—rather than frighten or injure—Toomer.

6 N.Y.S.3d 711

However, under the doctrine of transferred intent, a defendant who intends to cause the death of one individual but instead causes the death of another, unintended victim bears the same criminal liability as that which would have resulted if the intended target had been killed (see People v. Fernandez, 88 N.Y.2d at 781–782, 650 N.Y.S.2d 625, 673 N.E.2d 910 ; People v. Molina, 79 A.D.3d 1371, 1373–1374, 914 N.Y.S.2d 331 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 861, 923 N.Y.S.2d 423, 947 N.E.2d 1202 [2011] ; People v. Ballard, 38 A.D.3d 1001, 1003, 831 N.Y.S.2d 285 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 840, 840 N.Y.S.2d 766, 872 N.E.2d 879 [2007] ). Further, the intent to kill may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and a defendant's actions, “and indeed this may be the only way of proving intent in the typical case of criminal attempt” (People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 301, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094 [1977] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Johnson, 106 A.D.3d 1272, 1278, 965 N.Y.S.2d 220 [2013], lvs. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1041, 21 N.Y.3d 1043, 972 N.Y.S.2d 540, 995 N.E.2d 856 [2013], 21 N.Y.3d 1045, 972 N.Y.S.2d 543, 995 N.E.2d 859 [2013], 21 N.Y.3d 1046, 972 N.Y.S.2d 544, 995 N.E.2d 860 [2013] ). Contrary to defendant's assertion, there is no legal...