People v. James

• Decision Date: 29 January 2020
• Docket Number: Ind.No. 11–00382,2017–08664
• Citation: 179 A.D.3d 1095,118 N.Y.S.3d 179
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Kenyatta JAMES, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

179 A.D.3d 1095

118 N.Y.S.3d 179

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Kenyatta JAMES, Appellant.

2017–08664

Ind.No. 11–00382

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

Argued - October 3, 2019

January 29, 2020

Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (William C. Ghee of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, SHERI S. ROMAN, BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Craig Stephen Brown, J.), rendered May 15, 2017, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the facts, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for further proceedings consistent with CPL 160.50.

On the evening of July 30, 2010, the then 22–year–old complainant allegedly was robbed at knifepoint by someone identified by her as "Manny," whom she had met approximately an hour earlier. The complainant described Manny as a light-skinned black male wearing a brown and white striped shirt and jeans, approximately 20 years old, and around six feet tall. The defendant, who was a 33–year–old black male, five feet eight inches tall, wearing shorts and carrying a red and blue striped shirt, was arrested several minutes after the incident following a showup identification procedure. At that showup procedure, the complainant initially failed to identify the defendant. Thereafter, the police, standing on either side of the defendant, draped the shirt over the defendant's chest. Only at that point did the complainant identify the defendant as the person who had robbed her.

In 2011, the matter proceeded to a jury trial, after which the defendant was found guilty of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The defendant appealed from that judgment of conviction. Upon that appeal, this Court reversed that judgment and granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony (see People v. James, 128 A.D.3d 723, 8 N.Y.S.3d 400 ). Specifically, this Court found that the police-arranged showup identification procedure which precipitated the defendant's arrest was unduly suggestive and, thus, the County Court should have suppressed the identification testimony. Moreover, since the evidence of the defendant's guilt was not overwhelming, the judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered.

In 2016, following a hearing and a determination by the County Court that the complainant had an independent source for her in-court identification, the matter proceeded to a second jury trial, whereupon the defendant was again convicted of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Upon the exercise of our independent factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we conclude that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence. "[W]eight of the evidence review requires a court first to determine whether an acquittal would not have been unreasonable. If so, the court must weigh conflicting testimony,...