People v. Meadows, 110483

• Decision Date: 14 May 2020
• Docket Number: 110483
• Citation: 183 A.D.3d 1016,123 N.Y.S.3d 753
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kimani J. MEADOWS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

183 A.D.3d 1016

123 N.Y.S.3d 753

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Kimani J. MEADOWS, Appellant.

110483

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

Calendar Date: March 25, 2020

Decided and Entered: May 14, 2020

Mark A. Diamond, Albany, for appellant.

Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Susan Rider–Ulacco of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Lynch, J.P., Mulvey, Devine, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Lynch, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Baker, J.), rendered July 9, 2018, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

In July 2017, defendant was charged by indictment with murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The charges stemmed from defendant shooting and killing the victim on a street in the Town of Elmira, Chemung County. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged.¹ He was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 25 years to life for his conviction of murder in the second degree, 15 years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, for his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and 3½ to 7 years for his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that his verdict was not based on legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence because the evidence did not show that he was the individual who shot the victim or possessed the firearm. Initially, defendant failed to preserve his legal sufficiency challenge by making only a general objection at the close of the People's proof (see People v. McCollum, 176 A.D.3d 1402, 1403, 112 N.Y.S.3d 298 [2019] ). "Nevertheless, in reviewing defendant's argument that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, this Court necessarily must ensure that the People proved each element of [each] crime beyond a reasonable doubt" ( People v. Brinkley, 174 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 106 N.Y.S.3d 210 [2019] [citations omitted], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 979, 113 N.Y.S.3d 646, 137 N.E.3d 16 [2019] ; see People v. Harris, 177 A.D.3d 1199, 1200, 115 N.Y.S.3d 477 [2019] ). "[W]hen undertaking a weight of the evidence review, we must first determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable and, if not, then 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. Hernandez, 180 A.D.3d 1234, 1235, 116 N.Y.S.3d 799 [2020] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v. Fragassi, 178 A.D.3d 1153, 1154, 113 N.Y.S.3d 785 [2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1128, 118 N.Y.S.3d 543, 141 N.E.3d 499 [2020] ).

As relevant here, a person is guilty of murder in the second degree when, "[w]ith intent to cause the death of another person, he [or she] causes the death of such person" ( Penal Law § 125.25[1] ). A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree when, "with intent to use the same unlawfully against another, such person ... possesses a loaded firearm" ( Penal Law § 265.03[1][b] ). Finally, a person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when "[s]uch person commits the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree as defined in [ Penal Law § 265.01(1), (2), (3) or (5) ] and has been previously convicted of any crime" ( Penal Law § 265.02[1] ). A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree when "[h]e or she possesses any firearm" ( Penal Law § 265.01[1] ).

At trial, text messages admitted into evidence revealed that, leading up to the day of the incident, on December 9, 2016, defendant messaged the victim asking her to "[c]ome to Elmira" and stating that he would pick her up from the bus station. The victim messaged defendant that she was expecting to be living with him after arriving in Elmira, stating, "[t]his is about you and me for the rest of our lives." On December 11, 2016, the victim messaged defendant informing him that someone had stolen her cell phone and, using another individual's cell phone, the victim informed defendant that she was on the bus to Elmira. Upon her arrival, the victim also used multiple other individuals' cell phones – which several witnesses testified to at trial – to ask defendant to pick her up, but he was no longer willing to do so. One of the messages to defendant stated, "In Elmira because that's where you are" and "[l]ove ya." Eventually, the victim found a shelter in Elmira and provided the name and phone number of defendant as her emergency contact. On December 14, 2016, the victim sent an email to defendant from a library that if he would not reply back, she would send a letter to his mother's address. That day, the victim also messaged defendant to meet her at the bus station. Later that day, shortly after 2:00 p.m., the recovered video footage showed that, after a "greenish in color" vehicle that had a shape of a Nissan Quest arrived and parked near the bus station, an individual walked towards the bus station and came back accompanied by another person. As to what occurred later that day, several witnesses testified that they observed a minivan on the side of the intersection of Draht Hill Road and Jerusalem Hill Road in Elmira – where the incident occurred – between 6:52 p.m. and 7:45 p.m., which was confirmed by another video footage. One of the witnesses testified that he identified that minivan as a dark-colored Nissan Quest. It was later established that defendant drove a green Nissan Quest.

The victim was discovered lying on the side of the road with no pulse around 8:00 p.m. on December 14, 2016. The autopsy of the victim revealed that she had five entry wounds

on her head, neck, right shoulder and abdomen. Her cause of death was determined to be from gunshot wounds to her neck and head. The forensic pathologist testified that his examination revealed that the victim was shot in the head at a range of "just a few inches, at most" and .22 caliber bullets were recovered from the body. One witness testified that, following the incident, he heard defendant discussing with others at an auto shop the news of a woman's body found on Draht Hill Road, at which time defendant stated that the victim was bothering his mother and that "[s]he deserved it." Defendant's mother testified that the victim sometimes came to her home to speak to defendant, including in November 2016, when the victim again asked to see defendant and defendant's mother told the victim not to come by anymore, as she had a court order against the victim – which defendant's mother admitted was not true.

Additional evidence placed defendant at the scene of the incident. A visualization of defendant's cell phone records revealed that, on the day of the incident, his phone was generally in the vicinity of the bus station around 2:14 p.m., and then, between 6:47 p.m. and 7:38 p.m., his phone was moving away from Draht Hill Road or Jerusalem Hill Road northbound. A State Police investigator with the Computer Crimes Unit testified that defendant's second cell phone contained pictures dated December 14, 2016, taken between 6:41 p.m. to 6:59 p.m., of the moon that additionally portrayed high power towers; when the investigator took pictures on Draht Hill Road, they showed "the same tower configuration and landscape." Furthermore, tire impression evidence was also recovered from the scene of the crime, which revealed that defendant's right front tire shared the same tread and tread design with the impressions found at the scene.

A police officer testified that several days after the incident, defendant was apprehended during a traffic stop. A search of defendant's vehicle revealed two cell phones and a backpack that contained a Smith and Wesson six-shot .22 caliber revolver with black electrical tape wrapped around the grip and six bullets in the cylinder. The backpack also contained a plastic container holding bullets. Forensic examination of the gun determined that a DNA profile of defendant was a major contributor to the DNA discovered on the trigger's housing and the muzzle of the firearm and that his DNA was a contributor to the DNA found on the grip.

Defendant testified that he had known the victim for 13 years, and they kept in contact approximately every five years. Defendant admitted to exchanging text messages with the victim leading up to the incident and that the victim was "bugging" his mother. As to the day of the incident, although initially he denied picking up the victim, defendant admitted that he picked up the victim from the bus station with his van at 2:15 p.m. Defendant then explained that they headed to Lormore Street, where he resides, and the victim left around 4:00 p.m. and he did not see her for the rest of the day. Defendant then stated that he went to see some individuals to purchase marihuana, then "drove around" Elmira to see the moon and went to take pictures of the moon near Draht Hill Road around 7:00 p.m. Defendant also admitted that it was his backpack found in the car but denied ownership of the gun found in it.

Although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we find that the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence. Turning first to defendant's conviction of murder in the second degree, the evidence shows that defendant invited the victim to Elmira and exchanged text messages with her leading up to the incident. Defendant's mother testified, and defendant confirmed, that the victim was bothering his mo...