People v. Harris

• Decision Date: 02 June 2022
• Docket Number: 112407
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 03548
• Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stephan Harris, Also Known as Semmi, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2022 NY Slip Op 03548

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Stephan Harris, Also Known as Semmi, Appellant.

No. 112407

Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

June 2, 2022

Calendar Date: April 25, 2022

Tina Sodhi, Alternate Public Defender, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Vincent Stark of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Fisher, JJ.

Fisher, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDonough, J.), rendered August 6, 2018 in Albany County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

In June 2017, defendant was charged by indictment with murder in the second degree based on allegations that he intentionally stabbed the victim with a knife, causing the victim's death. Following a jury trial, at which defendant pursued a justification defense, defendant was acquitted of murder in the second degree and found guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree. He was subsequently sentenced to a prison term of 25 years with 5 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Initially, defendant contends that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is against the weight of the evidence. We disagree. "In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" (People v Warner, 194 A.D.3d 1098, 1099 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1030 [2021]; see People v Agudio, 194 A.D.3d 1270, 1271 [2021]). "In contrast, when undertaking a weight of the evidence review, this Court must first determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable and then weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" (People v Sweet, 200 A.D.3d 1315, 1316 [2021] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 930 [2022]; see People v Lyons, 200 A.D.3d 1222, 1225-1226 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1162 [2022]). Although this Court must "review the evidence in a neutral light in making that assessment, we also accord great deference to the jury's credibility determinations, given that the jurors have the opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor" (People v Hodgins, 202 A.D.3d 1377, 1379 [2022] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v Walker, 191 A.D.3d 1154, 1156 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 961 [2021]).

As relevant here, "[a] person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when[, ]... [w]ith intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he [or she] causes the death of such person" (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). "[W]here a defendant advances a justification defense, the People are obliged to 'demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that [he or she] did not believe deadly force was necessary or that a reasonable person in the same situation would not have perceived that deadly force was necessary'" (People v Hodgins, 202 A.D.3d at 1379, quoting People v Umali, 10 N.Y.3d 417, 425 [2008], cert denied 556 U.S. 1110 [2009]; see Penal Law § 35.15 [1], [2]; People v Harris, 186 A.D.3d 907, 909 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1120 [2021]). However, the use of "deadly physical force is not justified if the person knows he or she can avoid the use of force by retreating with complete safety. [Penal Law § 35.15] contains only one exception: there is no duty to retreat if a person is 'in his [or her] dwelling and not the initial aggressor'" (People v Hernandez, 98 N.Y.2d 175, 180 [2002], quoting Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a] [i]; see People v Ramirez, 118 A.D.3d 1108, 1112 [2014]; People v Curry, 85 A.D.3d 1209, 1212 [2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 815 [2011]).

Turning to our evidentiary review, several key facts were undisputed. First, the victim and a group of people, primarily his family or friends, were drinking alcohol, smoking marihuana and gambling over a dice game in a relative's garage. Later in the evening, defendant joined in on the dice game and had already been, and continued, drinking alcohol. Second, at some point the victim and defendant had a disagreement over a bet, wherein tensions escalated and the victim's friends forced defendant out of the garage. Finally, the victim followed defendant out of the garage and into the street, wherein the victim punched defendant twice in the face before the victim was stabbed twice and defendant ran away. The factual dispute at trial revolved around what transpired during the confrontation before defendant started to run away and whether defendant acted in self-defense when he stabbed the victim.

In that regard, the People presented the testimony of one of the victim's cousins, who testified that he observed the victim and defendant engage in a physical struggle along a truck parked in the street. The cousin testified that he saw the victim punch defendant in the face twice and then backed up to the other side of the street to catch his footing. Then, according to the cousin, defendant charged at the victim and stabbed the victim in his left shoulder. Upon being stabbed by defendant, the cousin heard the victim say, "you going to stab me, Bro? You going to stab me, really?" The cousin testified that he saw the victim grab his stab wound on his left shoulder when defendant stabbed the victim again, this time in the stomach. The cousin testified that after defendant stabbed the victim a second time, defendant started to run down the street, which is when the cousin heard a gunshot. The cousin admitted that, originally, he was not truthful with detectives about what he saw because he "was hoping that [the victim] would make it through and let him deal with this" - to let the victim decide "[w]hether he wanted to testify or whatever, keep it to the streets." The cousin further testified that, after he...