People v. Matos

• Decision Date: 25 November 2015
• Citation: People v. Matos, 133 A.D.3d 885, 21 N.Y.S.3d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Anthony MATOS, appellant. (Appeal No. 1) The People, etc., respondent, v. Jason Matos, appellant. (Appeal No. 2) The People, etc., respondent, v. Lee Taylor, appellant. (Appeal No. 3).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

133 A.D.3d 885

21 N.Y.S.3d 267

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Anthony MATOS, appellant. (Appeal No. 1)

The People, etc., respondent,

v.Jason Matos, appellant. (Appeal No. 2)

The People, etc., respondent,

v.Lee Taylor, appellant. (Appeal No. 3).

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

Nov. 25, 2015.

Edelstein & Grossman, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan I. Edelstein and Robert M. Grossman of counsel), for appellants.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Appeals (1) by the defendantAnthony Matos from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Aloise, J.), rendered August 3, 2011, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, gang assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence; (2) by the defendantJason Matos from a judgment of the same court, rendered August 3, 2011, convicting him of gang assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence; and (3) by the defendantLee Taylor from a judgment of the same court, rendered August 3, 2011, convicting him of gang assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.The appeal by the defendantAnthony Matos brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of his motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

In the early morning hours of June 20, 2007, the defendantsAnthony Matos(hereinafter Anthony), Jason Matos(hereinafter Jason), and Lee Taylor(hereinafter Taylor)(hereinafter collectively Anthony's group), along with about a dozen other friends, were at Riviera Club (hereinafter the club), in Astoria, Queens.A second group, including Jason Brown(hereinafter Brown) and five or six others (hereinafter collectively Brown's group), was seated nearby.Ultimately, a fight broke out between members of Anthony's group and Brown's group.The club's security personnel broke up the fight, and escorted Brown's group out through a side door while Anthony's group was briefly detained.Anthony's group was permitted to leave through the front entrance a few minutes later, but Brown and his group had come around to the front of the club and, when Anthony's group exited the club, the fight recommenced.Security again attempted to stop the fight, but the situation quickly degenerated into what one security employee described as a "mêlée."

During this fight, Brown was stabbed, stomped on, and left in the street.Brown later died as a result of his injuries.

Anthony, Jason, and Taylor, among others, were subsequently indicted on, inter alia, charges of manslaughter in the first degree (Anthony and Jason), gang assault in the first degree (Anthony, Jason, and Taylor), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Anthony and Jason).After a combined Wade/Huntley hearing(seeUnited States v. Wade,388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149;People v. Huntley,15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179 ), the Supreme Court determined, inter alia, that certain statements made by Anthony while he was in custody outside of the presence of his attorney were not the product of police interrogation and, therefore, were not subject to suppression.

Anthony, Jason, and Taylor were tried together.At trial, Gilbert Martinez(hereinafter Martinez), another member of Anthony's group, testified that on the night of the incident, the last person he saw near Brown was Anthony, who was crouched over Brown.Later that same night, Anthony admitted to him that "he stabbed [Brown] twice."The jury also viewed substantial portions of the club's security video, which depicted both the interior and exterior of the premises.The jury returned a verdict convicting Anthony of manslaughter in the first degree, gang assault first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon fourth degree.Jason and Taylor were both convicted of gang assault in the second degree.

Contrary to the defendants' contention, the evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People(seePeople v. Contes,60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), was legally sufficient to support the convictions.The testimony given by Martinez, particularly in combination with evidence from the club's security videos and the testimony of other witnesses, was adequate to establish the involvement of each of the defendants in the fight which led to Brown's death, and that they acted in concert with one another so as to support the gang assault charges against each of the defendants.The trial evidence was also legally sufficient to support Anthony's convictions of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (seePeople v. Abraham,22 N.Y.3d 140, 146, 978 N.Y.S.2d 723;People v. Cintron,95 N.Y.2d 329, 332, 717 N.Y.S.2d 72, 740 N.E.2d 217;People v. Taylor,94 N.Y.2d 910, 911, 707 N.Y.S.2d 618, 729 N.E.2d 337 )."The mere fact that the evidence is subject to an interpretation different from that found by the jury does not mean that the People failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt"(People v. Taxiarhopoulos,172 A.D.2d 783, 784, 569 N.Y.S.2d 156 ).

Additionally, and contrary to the opinion of our dissenting colleague, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (seePeople v. Romero,7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902;People v. Saunders,127 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 6 N.Y.S.3d 673 )."Upon [a]defendant's request, the Appellate Division must conduct a weight of the evidence review," and thus, "a defendant will be given one appellate review of adverse factual findings"(People v. Danielson,9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1;seePeople v. Curry,112 A.D.3d 843, 844, 976 N.Y.S.2d 571;see alsoArthur Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals§ 21:1 at 744 [3d ed. rev. 2005] ).If a finding in favor of the defendant would not have been unreasonable, then this Court" must weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions"(People v. Danielson,9 N.Y.3d at 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 )."Once this Court conducts such an analysis, it must then decide whether the verdict finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was warranted"(People v. Curry,112 A.D.3d at 844, 976 N.Y.S.2d 571 )." Essentially,"this Court"sits as a thirteenth juror and decides which facts were proven at trial"(People v. Danielson,9 N.Y.3d at 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1, citingTibbs v. Florida,457 U.S. 31, 42, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 ).If it appears that the fact-finder failed to give the evidence the weight it should have been accorded, then this Court may set aside the verdict and dismiss the accusatory instrument or any reversed count thereof (seeCPL 470.20[5];People v. Romero,7 N.Y.3d at 643–644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902;People v. Mateo,2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053;People v. Bleakley,69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).

Here, Martinez's testimony was critical to the jury's conclusion that Anthony was culpable in Brown's death.The dissent contends that the cooperation agreement between Martinez and the prosecution"provided Martinez with a strong incentive to fabricate his testimony," and that the inconsistencies between Martinez's out-of-court statements and his trial testimony compel the conclusion that Martinez was not credible.However, the fact of the cooperation agreement was disclosed to the jury, and merely because a witness enters into such an agreement does not render his or her testimony incredible (seePeople v. Dennis,223 A.D.2d 599, 636 N.Y.S.2d 824 ).Furthermore, "when [a] jury, acting within its rightful province of determining credibility, weighing evidence and drawing justifiable inferences from proven facts, has an objective, rational basis for resolving beyond a reasonable doubt the contradictory inculpating and exculpating versions of the events given by the witness, its determination of guilt is [not] based on ‘impermissible speculation’ and should be upheld"(People v. Fratello,92 N.Y.2d 565, 573–574, 684 N.Y.S.2d 149, 706 N.E.2d 1173, quotingPeople v. Jackson,65 N.Y.2d 265, 272, 491 N.Y.S.2d 138, 480 N.E.2d 727 ).Here, there was an objective rational basis for the jury's conclusion.Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (seeCPL 470.15[5] ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (seePeople v. Mateo,2 N.Y.3d at 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ).

In this regard, we note that the video evidence captured from security cameras which was presented to the jury is of poor quality.However, the jury had the benefit of seeing this evidence in the context of contemporaneous testimony from the individuals who were portrayed in the videos.Accordingly, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see generallyPeople v. Romero,7 N.Y.3d at 643–644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902;People v. Cahill,2 N.Y.3d 14, 58, 777 N.Y.S.2d 332, 809 N.E.2d 561 ).

The defendants also argue that the Supreme Court erred in its instructions regarding the phrase "acting in concert."Although the initial instructions to the jury on this issue may have been misleading, in response to the defendants' objections, the court provided the clarification they had requested, and thus, effectively ameliorated any error.Contrary to the defendants' contention, the court's subsequent response to a note from the jury seeking ...