People v. Lloyd-Douglas

• Decision Date: 03 August 2022
• Docket Number: 2018–03511,Ind. No. 2490/08
• Citation: 208 A.D.3d 520,173 N.Y.S.3d 287
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Collin F. LLOYD–DOUGLAS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

208 A.D.3d 520
173 N.Y.S.3d 287

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Collin F. LLOYD–DOUGLAS, appellant.

2018–03511
Ind. No. 2490/08

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

Argued—June 21, 2022
August 3, 2022

173 N.Y.S.3d 288

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sam Felman of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Jordan I. LoCascio of counsel), for respondent.

ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, LARA J. GENOVESI, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

208 A.D.3d 520

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Peter F. Vallone, Jr., J.), rendered February 22, 2018, as amended February 23, 2018, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

208 A.D.3d 521

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was charged with various crimes based on his allegedly beating the complainant, his former girlfriend, on the head with a hammer. After the defendant's first trial, the jury convicted him of

173 N.Y.S.3d 289

attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, but acquitted him of robbery in the first degree. On appeal, and for reasons not relevant to this appeal, this Court reversed and ordered a new trial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's order (see People v. Lloyd–Douglas, 102 A.D.3d 986, 958 N.Y.S.2d 744, affd sub nom. People v. Dunbar, 24 N.Y.3d 304, 998 N.Y.S.2d 679, 23 N.E.3d 946 ).

At the second trial, the prosecution introduced evidence that the defendant repeatedly hit the complainant over the head with a hammer and left her on the floor for several hours without calling for aid as she drifted in and out of consciousness. The Supreme Court further permitted the prosecution to elicit evidence that, although the complainant repeatedly asked for her cell phone so that she could call for help, the defendant departed the apartment with her cell phone.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the Supreme Court violated principles of collateral estoppel in permitting evidence of the defendant's taking of the complainant's cell phone considering his acquittal of robbery in the first degree at the first trial. The contention is without merit. Collateral estoppel principles did not preclude the introduction at the second...