People v. James

• Decision Date: 31 October 2019
• Docket Number: 109075
• Citation: 113 N.Y.S.3d 355,176 A.D.3d 1492
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kasheef JAMES, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

176 A.D.3d 1492
113 N.Y.S.3d 355

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Kasheef JAMES, Appellant.

109075

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

Calendar Date: September 5, 2019
Decided and Entered: October 31, 2019

113 N.Y.S.3d 356

G. Scott Walling, Slingerlands, for appellant.

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

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Mulvey and Devine, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Devine, J.

176 A.D.3d 1492

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Sypniewski, J.), rendered December 14, 2016, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (four counts).

176 A.D.3d 1493

As set forth in our decision relating to codefendant Maliek Lebron ( People v. Lebron, 166 A.D.3d 1069, 87 N.Y.S.3d 701 [2018], lv denied

113 N.Y.S.3d 357

32 N.Y.3d 1174, 97 N.Y.S.3d 584, 121 N.E.3d 211 [2019] ), defendant and Lebron opened fire on a group of people standing outside of a store in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County. The victim, a bystander with whom neither defendant nor Lebron had a problem, was struck and fatally wounded. Defendant, Lebron and their wheelman, codefendant Joshua Sayles, were jointly charged in an indictment with various offenses. The trials of defendant and Lebron were severed, and Sayles entered into a plea agreement obliging him to testify against both. Defendant's trial ended with a jury convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree – charged as a lesser included offense of murder in the second degree – and four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. County Court sentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms of 15 years and five years of postrelease supervision on each weapon possession conviction, as well as a consecutive prison term of 5 to 15 years on the manslaughter conviction. Defendant appeals.

Defendant argues that the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree related to Lebron's pistol were not supported by legally sufficient evidence and were against the weight of the evidence. There is no question that Lebron "knowingly possesse[d][a] loaded firearm" outside of his home or place of business and did so with the intent to unlawfully use it against another ( People v. McCoy, 169 A.D.3d 1260, 1262, 95 N.Y.S.3d 441 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1033, 102 N.Y.S.3d 517, 126 N.E.3d 167 [2019] ; see Penal Law § 265.03[1][b] ; [3]; People v. Myers, 163 A.D.3d 1152, 1154, 80 N.Y.S.3d 727 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1066, 89 N.Y.S.3d 121, 113 N.E.3d 955 [2018] ). As for whether defendant could be held responsible for that conduct, "[w]hen one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another person is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, he [or she] solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct" ( Penal Law § 20.00 ; accord People v. Trappler, 173 A.D.3d 1334, 1335, 102 N.Y.S.3d 756 [2019] ; see People v. Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561, 569, 584 N.Y.S.2d 282, 594 N.E.2d 563 [1992] ). "Accessorial liability does not require that [a defendant] either possess or have control over the ... weapon, or that [he or] she give it to the person who uses it, or even that [he or] she importunes its use aloud" ( Matter of Tatiana N., 73 A.D.3d 186, 190, 899 N.Y.S.2d 21 [2010] ). The People were instead required to prove that defendant knew that Lebron possessed the weapon and "shared the state of mind required for the commission of th[e] offense, intentionally aiding [Lebron] in such conduct and sharing a ‘community of purpose’ with him" ( id. at 191, 899 N.Y.S.2d 21 ; see

176 A.D.3d 1494

People v. Scott, 25 N.Y.3d 1107, 1109–1110, 14 N.Y.S.3d 308, 35 N.E.3d 476 [2015] ; People v. Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830, 832, 527 N.Y.S.2d 731, 522 N.E.2d 1029 [1988] ; People v. Junior, 119 A.D.3d 1228, 1229, 990 N.Y.S.2d 689 [2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 1044, 998 N.Y.S.2d 314, 23 N.E.3d 157 [2014] ; People v. Molson, 89 A.D.3d 1539, 1539–1540, 933 N.Y.S.2d 160 [2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 960, 944 N.Y.S.2d 489, 967 N.E.2d 714 [2012] ).

The trial proof reflected that defendant, Lebron, Sayles and others were hanging out in the hours before the shooting and that, in the course of their conversation, Lebron was mocked for having been assaulted by several people without retaliating. Defendant left separately from the others, and it is unclear whether he knew that Lebron had obtained a handgun when he did so. That said, he vowed before he left that he would be "there for" Lebron if Lebron chose to take action. Sayles, Lebron

113 N.Y.S.3d 358

and another friend then went for a drive in Sayles' car and surveilled a park to see if anyone Lebron had a problem with was there. Lebron thought he spotted someone and sought to call defendant, which proved unnecessary when the group ran into defendant and he joined them. Sayles testified that defendant was brought up to speed on the evening's events by Lebron, and the friend testified that they stopped by the homes of Lebron and defendant. The friend further testified that Lebron told those in the car that he needed a hoodie to avoid "mak[ing] it obvious," and defendant retrieved his own sweatshirt and gun. After driving by the park again and not seeing anyone of interest, the group passed by the market, where Lebron spotted someone and asked Sayles to stop. Sayles testified that Lebron said that he "might have to shoot at" the people in front of the store, while the friend testified that Lebron asked defendant if he was ready. Defendant and Lebron then exited the car, walked around the corner, opened fire and ran back to the car together.

In short, although defendant might not have known from the outset that Lebron had a gun and intended to use it, he later assisted in stalking potential victims, was present for actions and comments indicating that Lebron had a gun, obtained his own gun and joined Lebron in opening fire outside of the store, all of which reflects that he was aware of the true state of affairs by the time of the shooting. Under these circumstances, "the totality of the evidence permits only the conclusion that [defendant] knowingly participated and continued to participate even after his companion's intentions became clear," and that the two shared a community of purpose ( People v. Allah, 71 N.Y.2d at 832, 527 N.Y.S.2d 731, 522 N.E.2d 1029 ; see People v. Scott, 107 A.D.3d 1592, 1593, 966 N.Y.S.2d 728 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 958, 977 N.Y.S.2d 189, 999 N.E.2d 554 [2013] ; Matter of Tatiana N., 73 A.D.3d at 191, 899...