People v. Lorenz

• Decision Date: 01 December 2022
• Docket Number: 112219
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Travis LORENZ, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

178 N.Y.S.3d 836

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Travis LORENZ, Appellant.

112219

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

Calendar Date: October 14, 2022
Decided and Entered: December 1, 2022

178 N.Y.S.3d 838

G. Scott Walling, Slingerlands, for appellant.

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

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Fisher, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kathleen B. Hogan, J.), rendered September 12, 2019 in Schenectady County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of arson in the third degree.

Defendant was charged by indictment with arson in the third degree, stemming

178 N.Y.S.3d 839

from an incident where he set fire to a vehicle belonging to his former girlfriend (hereinafter the victim). Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty as charged. Defendant was sentenced, as an acknowledged second felony offender, to an indeterminate prison term of 5 to 10 years and ordered to pay restitution. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is against the weight of the evidence in that the People failed to prove his identity as the perpetrator. "When assessing the legal sufficiency of a jury verdict, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the People and examine whether there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt" ( People v. Paul, 202 A.D.3d 1203, 1204–1205 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1034, 169 N.Y.S.3d 224, 189 N.E.3d 331 [2022] ). "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, if not, 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. Colter, 206 A.D.3d 1371, 1373, 170 N.Y.S.3d 665 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1149, 174 N.Y.S.3d 44, 194 N.E.3d 751 [2022] ). As relevant here, "[a] person is guilty of arson in the third degree when he [or she] intentionally damages a ... motor vehicle by starting a fire or causing an explosion" ( Penal Law § 150.10[1] ).

The trial testimony established that the victim and defendant were formerly involved in an intimate relationship and lived together. On October 29, 2018 at around 9:30 p.m., the victim's neighbor notified her that the victim's vehicle was on fire. The victim testified that she observed a "rag stuffed in the gas tank" and that the back of the vehicle was on fire and burning. Using video surveillance footage, a fire investigator testified that he identified a possible suspect "standing in close proximity" to the driver's side of the victim's vehicle when "flashes of light" were seen before the fire started. The suspect wore dark clothes, silver headphones, and a red hat or bandana. The fire investigator tracked the suspect to a certain address by using video surveillance footage collected from multiple cameras owned by businesses or the County of Schenectady.

The victim subsequently identified defendant as the suspect based on his dark clothing, bandana and gait. She testified that defendant "always wore bandanas" and "all black," and she confirmed his residence being the address that the fire investigator tracked him to using the surveillance footage. A search warrant executed at this address resulted in the discovery of a red bandana, silver headphones, black sneakers and black hooded sweatshirts in defendant's bedroom. Thereafter, the victim testified that she had a text message conversation with defendant on New Year's Eve 2019. During the course of this conversation, defendant sent her a message stating "present this to the courtroom though you snitch a* * n* * * * * " and asked to meet in person to "settle this as adults." The victim responded that "you did this, now live with it," and defendant answered "yeah."

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, we conclude

178 N.Y.S.3d 840

that there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to conclude that defendant was the individual depicted in the video surveillance footage and identified by the victim (see People v. Johnson, 197 A.D.3d 61, 68–69, 150 N.Y.S.3d 401 [3d Dept. 2021] ; People v. Baldwin, 173 A.D.3d 1748, 1748–1749, 103 N.Y.S.3d 222 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 928, 109 N.Y.S.3d 736, 133 N.E.3d 440 [2019] ). Relying on her experience based on their intimate relationship in the months prior to the incident, the victim identified defendant by his propensity to wear certain articles of clothing and by his unique gait, as well as his residence, which was tracked by the fire investigator. Further coupled with the discoveries made during the execution of the search warrant of his residence and the text message conversation between the victim and defendant, this evidence renders the verdict legally sufficient to support defendant's conviction of arson in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Johnson, 197 A.D.3d at 68–69, 150 N.Y.S.3d 401 ; People v. Agudio, 194 A.D.3d 1270, 1271–1275, 149 N.Y.S.3d 326 [3d Dept. 2021] ).

As to the weight of the evidence, a different verdict would not have been unreasonable because the jury could have discredited the victim's identification of defendant. The jury could have also found the instances where the suspect "goes out of view momentarily" in the surveillance footage as he walked down various streets to and from the scene of the crime to have been too significant to positively identify him as the perpetrator. However, "any inconsistences and gaps in the testimony posed credibility issues for the jury" ( People v. Marryshow, 162 A.D.3d 1313, 1317, 79 N.Y.S.3d 377 [3d Dept. 2018] ). When viewing the evidence in a neutral light, further considering the multiple means by which defendant was identified in the record, we find that the jury's verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence (see People v. Howard, 134 A.D.3d 1153, 1157, 21 N.Y.S.3d 423 [3d Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 965, 36 N.Y.S.3d 627, 56 N.E.3d 907 [2016] ; People v. Launder, 132 A.D.3d 1151, 1153, 18 N.Y.S.3d 747 [3d Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1153, 39 N.Y.S.3d 387, 62 N.E.3d 127 [2016] ).

Next, defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in admitting two exhibits containing video surveillance footage, alleging that it was not sufficiently authenticated and lacked a proper foundation. We disagree. "A videotape may be authenticated by the testimony of a witness to the recorded events or of an operator or installer or maintainer of the equipment that the videotape accurately represents the subject matter depicted" ( People v. Sumpter, 191 A.D.3d 1160, 1165, 143 N.Y.S.3d 145 [3d Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d...