People v. Meacham

• Decision Date: 06 May 2011
• Citation: 84 A.D.3d 1713,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03751,922 N.Y.S.2d 721
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.William A. MEACHAM, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

84 A.D.3d 1713

922 N.Y.S.2d 721

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03751

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.William A. MEACHAM, Defendant–Appellant.

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

May 6, 2011.

John E. Tyo, Shortsville, for Defendant–Appellant.Barry L. Porsch, District Attorney, Waterloo, for Respondent.PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of gang assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.07), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim. We reject that contention ( see People v. Chowdhury, 22 A.D.3d 596, 802 N.Y.S.2d 252, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 753, 810 N.Y.S.2d 421, 843 N.E.2d 1161; see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Multiple witnesses testified at trial that defendant repeatedly punched or kicked the victim while he was on the ground. As a result of the beating, the victim sustained fractures to his face and skull, as well as permanent brain damage. Several relatives and a friend of defendant also struck the victim while he was on the ground. The People presented evidence establishing that defendant spearheaded the assault because he was angry with the victim for posting photographs of individuals identified as registered sex offenders, including defendant, at the apartment complex where defendant and the victim resided. Although defendant did not admit during the assault or anytime thereafter that his intent was to cause serious physical injury to the victim, “[a] defendant may be presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his actions” ( People v. Mahoney, 6 A.D.3d 1104, 776 N.Y.S.2d 402, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 660, 782 N.Y.S.2d 702, 816 N.E.2d 575; see People v. Getch, 50 N.Y.2d 456, 465, 429 N.Y.S.2d 579, 407 N.E.2d 425). The natural and probable consequences of repeatedly striking a man while he is on the ground defenseless is that he will sustain a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(10). Defendant's intent may also be “inferred from the totality of [his] conduct” ( People v. Horton, 18 N.Y.2d 355, 359, 275 N.Y.S.2d 377, 221 N.E.2d 909, mot. to amend remittitur granted 19 N.Y.2d 600, 634, 278 N.Y.S.2d 388, 224 N.E.2d 884, cert. denied 387 U.S. 934, 87 S.Ct. 2059, 18 L.Ed.2d 997; see People v. Mike, 283 A.D.2d 989, 724 N.Y.S.2d 389, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 904, 730 N.Y.S.2d 802, 756 N.E.2d 90), including the anger that defendant expressed toward the victim for having identified him in the photograph as a registered sex offender.

Contrary to defendant's further contention, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that he was “aided by two or more persons actually present” in causing serious physical injury to the victim (Penal Law § 120.07; see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). A friend of defendant who was staying in his apartment at the time of the assault testified that he observed defendant and five other people hitting the victim while he was on the ground. Similar testimony was given by another witness. Such testimony, accepted as true, established that there were at least two other people “in the immediate vicinity of the crime and [that they were] capable of rendering immediate assistance to [defendant]” ( People v. Rivera, 71 A.D.3d 701, 702, 897 N.Y.S.2d 146). Further, based on our review of the record, we cannot conclude that the testimony of those witnesses was “so inconsistent or unbelievable as to render it incredible as a matter of law” ( People v. Witherspoon, 66 A.D.3d 1456, 1457, 885 N.Y.S.2d 829, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 942, 895 N.Y.S.2d 333, 922 N.E.2d 922 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Black, 38 A.D.3d 1283, 1285, 832 N.Y.S.2d 375, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 982, 838 N.Y.S.2d 485, 869 N.E.2d 661). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we conclude that there was a “ ‘valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could lead a rational person’ to convict” defendant of gang assault in the first degree ( People v. Santi, 3 N.Y.3d 234, 246, 785 N.Y.S.2d 405, 818 N.E.2d 1146; see People v. Sanchez, 13 N.Y.3d 554, 566, 893 N.Y.S.2d 803, 921 N.E.2d 570, rearg. denied 14 N.Y.3d 750, 898 N.Y.S.2d 541, 925 N.E.2d 579).

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Although defendant contends that the similar testimony of his friend and another witness is not worthy of belief, it is well settled that issues relating to the credibility of witnesses are primarily within the province of the jury, which observed and heard the witnesses ( see People v. Massey, 61 A.D.3d 1433, 877 N.Y.S.2d 589, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 746, 886 N.Y.S.2d...