People v. Molson

• Decision Date: 18 November 2011
• Citation: 89 A.D.3d 1539,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08427,933 N.Y.S.2d 160
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Darrius S. MOLSON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08427

89 A.D.3d 1539

933 N.Y.S.2d 160

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Darrius S. MOLSON, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Nov. 18, 2011.

David J. Farrugia, Public Defender, Lockport (Mary–Jean Bowman of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Theresa L. Prezioso of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03[3] ), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish his liability as an accessory. We reject that contention. “Accessorial liability requires only that defendant, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission of the crime, intentionally aid another in the conduct constituting the offense” ( People v. Chapman, 30 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 816 N.Y.S.2d 256, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 811, 822 N.Y.S.2d 486, 855 N.E.2d 802 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see § 20.00). Here, we conclude that there was evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that defendant and his accomplice shared “a common purpose and a collective objective” ( People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417, 422, 626 N.Y.S.2d 20, 649 N.E.2d 1164), and that “defendant either shot the victim or shared in the intention of the [accomplice] to do so” ( People v. Morris, 229 A.D.2d 451, 644 N.Y.S.2d 901, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 990, 649 N.Y.S.2d 397, 672 N.E.2d 623). Immediately prior to the shooting, the victim was located on the porch of a house with one of the witnesses. That witness testified that, before she fled into the house, she observed defendant approach the porch with a gun raised toward the victim ( see People v. Irizarry, 233 A.D.2d 209, 209–210, 650 N.Y.S.2d 105, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 924, 654 N.Y.S.2d 726, 677 N.E.2d 298, 89 N.Y.2d 943, 655 N.Y.S.2d 894, 678 N.E.2d 507, 89 N.Y.2d 988, 656 N.Y.S.2d 746, 678 N.E.2d 1362). The People also presented evidence establishing that, just before the shooting, defendant overheard the accomplice state that he was going to “fxxx [the victim] up,” and the People further established that defendant arrived at and left the scene with that accomplice ( see People v. Carter, 293 A.D.2d 484, 741 N.Y.S.2d 546, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 626, 760 N.Y.S.2d 107, 790 N.E.2d 281). Moreover, shortly after his arrest, defendant told a jail officer that he had “just committed murder.”

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes 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 further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). We conclude that “an acquittal would not have been unreasonable” inasmuch as the jury could have concluded that defendant's accomplice fired all of the shots and that the identification made by the witness who observed defendant approach the porch was mistaken ( Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1). We further conclude, however, that the jury was justified in finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the evidence of accessorial liability set forth above ( see id.).

Defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress an identification of defendant from the second photo array shown to the witness who observed defendant approach the porch because that identification procedure was unduly suggestive. We reject that contention. The mere fact that the police show a witness multiple photo arrays does not render the second photo array suggestive where, as here, the police mitigated any potential suggestiveness by using a markedly different photograph of the defendant in the second photo array and placing it in a different location than in the first photo array ( see People v. Daniels, 202 A.D.2d 987, 612 N.Y.S.2d 984). Further, the second photo array was not rendered unduly suggestive by the fact that defendant was the only individual depicted in both photo arrays ( see id.), or by the fact that the witness failed to identify defendant in the first photo array ( see People v. Brennan, 261 A.D.2d 914, 693 N.Y.S.2d 773, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 820, 702 N.Y.S.2d 590, 724 N.E.2d 382). We conclude that the composition and appearance of the second photo array was not unduly suggestive. The individuals depicted therein were generally similar in appearance to defendant, inasmuch as they all were black males who appeared to be of similar age and skin tone, and the photographs were similarly cropped ( see generally People v. McBride, 14 N.Y.3d 440, 448, 902 N.Y.S.2d 830, 928 N.E.2d 1027, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 327, 178 L.Ed.2d 212).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, the statement of his accomplice that he wanted to “fxxx [the victim] up” was not hearsay, and the court therefore properly admitted that statement in evidence. Defendant was present when his accomplice made that statement, and the People sought to admit the statement in evidence to provide circumstantial evidence of defendant's state of mind, i.e., that defendant went to the crime scene with the accomplice knowing that violence was likely to result, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the accomplice ( see People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102, 1103, 462 N.Y.S.2d 816, 449 N.E.2d 710; People v. Daniels, 265 A.D.2d 909, 910, 698 N.Y.S.2d...