People v. Lancaster

• Citation: 200 A.D.3d 1352,158 N.Y.S.3d 399
• Decision Date: 16 December 2021
• Docket Number: 112628
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Johnnie LANCASTER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

200 A.D.3d 1352

158 N.Y.S.3d 399

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Johnnie LANCASTER, Appellant.

112628

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

Calendar Date: October 22, 2021

Decided and Entered: December 16, 2021

Hug Law, PLLC, Albany (Matthew C. Hug of counsel), for appellant.

David J. Clegg, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Lynch, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), entered May 1, 2019, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Defendant was charged by indictment with burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in connection with a February 2018 home invasion in the Town of Saugerties, Ulster County. Defendant was convicted as charged following a jury trial, at which he represented himself. He was sentenced to a prison term of 20 years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision, upon the burglary conviction and a lesser concurrent prison term on the weapon possession conviction, as well as $1,100 in restitution. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that County Court jeopardized his right to a fair trial when it made certain statements to the jury pool that, in his view, created the potential for prejudice. As defendant did not object to the challenged statements, this argument is unpreserved (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Santiago, 185 A.D.3d 1151, 1152, 126 N.Y.S.3d 812 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1097, 131 N.Y.S.3d 290, 155 N.E.3d 783 [2020] ). In any event, the remark by County Court that the jury had the opportunity to "assist the court" came at the conclusion of introductory remarks in which the court explained the role of the jury (to determinate facts) and the court (to state the law) to ensure that defendant received a fair trial. The court was explaining that it was for the jury to determine whether the People proved defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the court's comment was inartful and of some concern, in context, we do not find defendant's right to a fair trial to have been compromised.

With respect to the burglary conviction, defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence as it relates to the dwelling and intent elements of the crime. He first argues that, even if he entered into a screened-in porch area of the residence, the porch does not qualify as a "dwelling" within the embrace of the Penal Law. He further posits that any entry into the porch was not to commit a crime but for the innocuous purpose of retrieving an errantly fired crossbow arrow.

In conducting 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" ( People v. Stover, 178 A.D.3d 1138, 1139, 115 N.Y.S.3d 500 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1163, 120 N.Y.S.3d 249, 142 N.E.3d 1151 [2020] ; see People v. Butkiewicz, 175 A.D.3d 792, 793, 107 N.Y.S.3d 181 [2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1076, 116 N.Y.S.3d 165, 139 N.E.3d 823 [2019] ). "Where a different finding would not have been unreasonable, this Court must 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. Forney, 183 A.D.3d 1113, 1114, 124 N.Y.S.3d 732 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1065, 129 N.Y.S.3d 397, 152 N.E.3d 1198 [2020] ; see People v. McMillan, 185 A.D.3d 1208, 1208, 128 N.Y.S.3d 85 [2020], lvs denied 35 N.Y.3d 1112, 1114, 133 N.Y.S.3d 530, 532, 158 N.E.3d 547, 549 [2020]).

As charged in the indictment, "[a] person is guilty of burglary in the first degree when he [or she] knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein, and when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight therefrom, he [or she] or another participant in the crime ... [u]ses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument" ( Penal Law § 140.30[3] ). A dwelling "means a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night" ( Penal Law § 140.00[3] ), and a dangerous instrument means, in pertinent part, "any instrument ... which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious injury" ( Penal Law § 10.00[13] ). In determining whether an instrument is dangerous within the meaning of the statute, "[t]he courts of this [s]tate have consistently adopted [a] use-oriented approach," which focuses on whether the instrument was "used in a manner which render[e]d it readily capable of causing serious physical injury [or death]" ( People v. Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113, 116, 440 N.Y.S.2d 607, 423 N.E.2d 30 [1981] ).

At trial, the victim testified that, at the time of the incident, he was at home with his wife and three young children. The residence consisted of two stories and a basement, with all of the bedrooms located on the second floor. The family room was located on the first floor and was connected to a screened-in porch, which contained tile flooring, electricity, two couches and a dining table. The victim and his family used the porch for "everyday activities" and ate their meals there on a regular basis. As to the underlying incident, the victim testified that, around 1:30 a.m. on February 23, 2018, he awoke to the sound of his three-year-old son crying, prompting him to get out of bed, console the child and go back to sleep. When he awoke again at 7:35 a.m., he went downstairs and noticed that the blinds were cracked in the family room. The victim pulled the blinds back and noticed "a hole in the window" between the family room and the porch. The victim went onto the porch and he observed that "the couches were tossed [and] all the pillows were off the couches." He also noticed that the room's two screened doors had been tampered with, explaining that there was a rip in one of them and the other was "completely ripped" off of its frame. Moreover, "[t]he banister going down the steps was missing the end cap on the stair rail" and the basement window was "completely removed with glass on the exterior of the home." The victim also found an "arrow" lodged in the wall above the family room couch "at head level." The victim then informed his wife about the discovery, had the family gather in the bathroom while he performed a "security sweep"¹ of the house and eventually called the police. The victim confirmed that he had not given anyone permission to enter the home and had locked the doors before going to bed.

As to the physical evidence, Vincent M. Boyd, a forensic investigator with the State Police, responded to the residence around 10:35 a.m. for the purpose of collecting DNA samples. Boyd located blood on the frame of the exterior door to the screened-in porch and a vertical rip in the screen of the door. Moreover, he located two "cut marks" in the screen of the same interior window where the arrow had passed through – between the porch and family room – as well as blood on the screen and a bent window frame. According to Boyd, it "appeared as though the window itself had been pried in an attempt to remove it." He also noticed a round hole in this window, positing that the hole was created by the arrow having been shot through it, which, in his estimation, had travelled "15 feet across the room" and "embedded itself into th[e] [living room] wall" 51 inches off of the ground. Boyd also found an axe under the steps to the entrance of the porch, which had blood stains on it. Although no fingerprint evidence was found on the axe, defendant's DNA was located on it, as well as in the blood on the exterior door frame to the porch. Brian Lasowski, an investigator who responded to the residence after the incident, examined the basement and noted that the basement window had been broken. H...