People v. Pratcher

• Citation: 134 A.D.3d 1522,22 N.Y.S.3d 757
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shaquar PRATCHER, Defendant–Appellant.
• Decision Date: 31 December 2015
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

134 A.D.3d 1522
22 N.Y.S.3d 757

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Shaquar PRATCHER, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Dec. 31, 2015.

22 N.Y.S.3d 758

The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Barbara J. Davies of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas T. Texido of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

134 A.D.3d 1522

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a bench trial of, inter alia, murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [3] [felony murder] ). The conviction arises from a home invasion burglary during which the 96–year–old victim sustained, among other injuries, a subdural hematoma and so many broken facial bones that his skull remained distorted when he died approximately five months later.

22 N.Y.S.3d 759

We reject defendant's contention that the testimony of the two accomplices was insufficiently corroborated. The Criminal Procedure Law provides that a defendant "may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense" (CPL 60.22[1] ). Corroborating evidence is sufficient if it " ‘tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way as may reasonably satisfy the [factfinder] that the accomplice is telling the truth’ " (People v. Reome, 15 N.Y.3d 188, 192, 906 N.Y.S.2d 788, 933 N.E.2d 186, quoting People v. Dixon, 231 N.Y. 111, 116, 131 N.E. 752 ; see People v. Mohamed, 94 A.D.3d 1462, 1463, 942 N.Y.S.2d 305, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 999, 951 N.Y.S.2d 475, 975 N.E.2d 921, reconsideration denied 20 N.Y.3d 934, 957 N.Y.S.2d 694, 981 N.E.2d 291 ). Therefore, contrary to defendant's contention, the statute "need not be read ... to require that all corroboration that depends to any degree on the accomplice's testimony be ignored ... There can be corroborative evidence that, read with the accomplice's

134 A.D.3d 1523

testimony, makes it more likely that the defendant committed the offense, and thus tends to connect him to it" (Reome, 15 N.Y.3d at 194, 906 N.Y.S.2d 788, 933 N.E.2d 186 ). Therefore, "some evidence may be considered corroborative even though it simply supports the accomplice testimony, and does not independently incriminate the defendant" (id.; see People v. Lipford, 129 A.D.3d 1528, 1529, 11 N.Y.S.3d 763 ), or if it " ‘harmonized’ " with the accomplices' testimony (People v. McRae, 15 N.Y.3d 761, 762, 906 N.Y.S.2d 809, 933 N.E.2d 207, rearg. denied 15 N.Y.3d 902, 912 N.Y.S.2d 570, 938 N.E.2d 1005 ; see People v. Highsmith, 124 A.D.3d 1363, 1364, 1 N.Y.S.3d 674, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1202, 16 N.Y.S.3d 524, 37 N.E.3d 1167 ).

Here, there was evidence from several sources corroborating the testimony of the accomplices. The testimony of the accomplices established the way in which the crime was committed, including that they and defendant used cell phones throughout the incident. In addition, one of the accomplices testified that, after the incident, defendant said that "the old man wouldn't shut up ... so he had to hit him[, and] when he hit him, he felt his jaw getting soft." The accomplices also testified that they heard a gunshot as they fled the scene of the burglary, and defendant told one of them that he accidentally had shot himself in the leg while hopping a fence.

In support of that testimony, the People introduced corroborating evidence from several sources tending to show that the accomplices were telling the truth and that defendant was one of the perpetrators. First, there is overwhelming evidence establishing that the crime occurred in the manner in which the accomplices testified. The security system at the victim's home recorded the events that took place outside the home, and that video recording depicts the perpetrators making cell phone calls, exchanging a handgun, and entering the home through a window at night, then carrying away items of personal property when they later left the home. There is also overwhelming medical evidence establishing that the victim was savagely beaten during the incident. That evidence "may be considered corroborative even though it simply supports the accomplice testimony, and does not independently incriminate the defendant" (Reome, 15 N.Y.3d at 194, 906 N.Y.S.2d 788, 933 N.E.2d 186 ).

Moreover, there is also sufficient corroborating evidence tending to connect defendant with the commission of the crime. First and foremost, the People introduced evidence that defendant was treated two days after the incident herein for a gunshot

22 N.Y.S.3d 760

wound to his leg, that he told the medical providers and a police officer that he sustained the wound two days earlier, i.e., on the day of the incident herein, and that the officer was unable to find any evidence corroborating defendant's

134 A.D.3d 1524

version of how defendant had sustained the wound. In addition, although the video recording by itself is not clear enough...