People v. Marin

• Decision Date: 11 June 1985
• Citation: 492 N.Y.S.2d 16,481 N.E.2d 556,65 N.Y.2d 741
• Parties: , 481 N.E.2d 556 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Luis MARIN, Also Known as Pedro Davila, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 16

492 N.Y.S.2d 16

65 N.Y.2d 741, 481 N.E.2d 556

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Luis MARIN, Also Known as Pedro Davila, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 11, 1985.

Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty. (Anthony Joseph Servino and Richard E. Weill, White Plains, of counsel), for appellant

J. Radley Herold, White Plains, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 102 A.D.2d 14, 478 N.Y.S.2d 650, should be affirmed.

The question on this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction on arson and felony murder charges stemming from a December 4, 1980 hotel fire in which 26 people lost their lives. The trial court set aside the jury's verdict of guilt and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed.

The well-settled standard of proof in circumstantial evidence cases is that the facts from which the inference of defendant's guilt is drawn must be inconsistent with the defendant's innocence and must exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis (People v. Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1024, 475 N.Y.S.2d 376, 463 N.E.2d 1228; People v. Way, 59 N.Y.2d 361, 365, 465 N.Y.S.2d 853, 452 N.E.2d 1181; People v. Bearden, 290 N.Y. 478, 480, 49 N.E.2d 785). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, this court must now determine whether the jury reasonably concluded that the prosecution met this standard.

The People at trial called more than 40 witnesses and introduced a multitude of exhibits. While the evidence was sufficient to establish that the fire was intentionally set (see, People v. Sims, 37 N.Y.2d 906, 378 N.Y.S.2d 381, 340 N.E.2d 743), the deficiency in the People's case lies in proof of the arsonist's identity. According to the prosecution, defendant's identity as the arsonist was proved by evidence of three points, each separately considered below: defendant's opportunity to set the fire and his access to the accelerant allegedly employed; his motive; and his consciousness of guilt as revealed in several statements he made following the fire.

OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS

The People contend that the evidence established defendant's access to the accelerant and his presence at the intersection of the Haight and Common Hallways, the origin of the fire, at the time the fire was set.

Though expert testimony failed to reveal directly the type of accelerant used, the prosecution asked the jury to infer that a mixture of sterno, or handy fuel, and gasoline caused the fire. In support of this theory, the People established that a bottle found in the kitchen service hallway near the Wilson Room three weeks after the fire, which had been left there before the fire, contained residue of such a mixture.

Even if this inference were justified, there is no support for the added inference that defendant had exclusive access to such a mixture, or that he was in possession of this mixture at a point close in time to the fire. Defendant had access to sterno, used on his coffee cart, but as the prosecutor admits, sterno alone could not have caused the fire; nor is it contended that sterno was inaccessible to other employees of the hotel or the general public. As to gasoline, the prosecution established only that about two months before the fire, defendant had a siphon and an empty gasoline container in the back of his car. This remote connection does not support an inference that defendant had possession of the accelerant on the day of the fire.

The People urge that defendant's presence at the Common-Haight intersection when the fire ignited was established by eyewitness testimony of defendant's whereabouts just before the fire, by defendant's admissions regarding his activity before and during the fire, and by testimony concerning observations made and noises heard when the fire began. Consideration of this argument must begin with the recognition that defendant's employment provides an innocent explanation for his presence in the hotel at all times and places, except for any presence in the Common-Haight intersection at the moment the fire was set.

On the morning of the fire, various hotel employees saw defendant preparing for the coffee breaks. At about 10:00 a.m., he was setting up for a 10:30 a.m. coffee break outside the Disbrow "A" Room, where Nestle Corporation executives were meeting. He then went back to the kitchen area and from there to the Jefferson Room, located in an adjoining building, where Alex Pastor was setting tables. Pastor testified that defendant left the Jefferson Room at about 10:10 a.m., some 15 minutes before Pastor heard the fire alarm. According to defendant's statement to the police, he went back to the kitchen to arrange for a coffee break for executives meeting in the Wilson Room. When Joseph Romero, the banquet captain, appeared in the kitchen area, defendant said he needed some sodas for the coffee break. Romero testified that he let defendant into the liquor room, after which defendant obtained the beverages and left. Romero did not notice exactly where defendant went when he left. According to defendant's statements, he went back to the kitchen to load the bottles on the cart in preparation for the Wilson Room coffee break, then brought the cart through the Jaimison Room, and then entered the Common Hallway where he saw the fire. Romero testified that he heard someone yell "fire" four to six minutes after defe...