People v. Rivers

• Decision Date: 27 July 2017
• Docket Number: 106883.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael D. RIVERS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

152 A.D.3d 1054
59 N.Y.S.3d 565

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Michael D. RIVERS, Appellant.

106883.

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

July 27, 2017.

59 N.Y.S.3d 566

M. Elizabeth Coreno, Saratoga Springs, for appellant.

Kristy L. Sprague, District Attorney, Elizabethtown (James E. Martineau Jr. of counsel), for respondent.

Before: EGAN JR., J.P., LYNCH, DEVINE and AARONS, JJ.

LYNCH, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Essex County (Meyer, J.), rendered April 4, 2014, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of manslaughter in the first degree and gang assault in the first degree.

In August 2012, defendant, together with Paul Taylor and Scott Denno, allegedly caused the death of the victim, Robert Rennie, by repeatedly and viciously kicking him as he lay on a street in the Village of Keeseville, Essex County.¹ Defendant

59 N.Y.S.3d 567

was indicted on charges of manslaughter in the first degree, gang assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, the latter of which County Court dismissed at the close of evidence pursuant to defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal. A jury convicted him on the charges of manslaughter in the first degree and gang assault in the first degree. He was sentenced to prison terms of 25 years on each conviction, to run concurrently. Defendant appeals.

Defendant initially argues that the convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence and were against the weight of the evidence. When considering the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate whether "there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] [internal citation omitted]; see People v. Ramos, 19 N.Y.3d 133, 136, 946 N.Y.S.2d 83, 969 N.E.2d 199 [2012] ). In a weight of the evidence review, we must first determine whether a different conclusion would not have been unreasonable; if not, then, "like the trier of fact below, [we] weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" ( People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). A verdict will only be set aside if we conclude—with deference to the jury's credibility assessments—that "the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded" ( id. at 643–644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ).

The focus of defendant's argument is that the evidence did not demonstrate that he intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim or that he caused the victim's death. As relevant here, to support a conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, the People must offer evidence demonstrating that defendant, "[w]ith intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, ... causes the death of such person" ( Penal Law § 125.20 [1 ] ). To support a conviction for gang assault in the first degree, the People must offer evidence demonstrating that defendant, "with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person and when aided by two or more other persons actually present, ... causes serious physical injury to such person" ( Penal Law § 120.07 ). At trial, the People argued that the elements of each crime could be satisfied either through defendant's own actions or, alternatively, as a consequence of acting in concert with Taylor and Denno. Under the latter acting in concert theory, "[i]nasmuch as the statute requires that the accomplice act with the mental culpability required for the commission of the underlying crime, an accomplice must have a shared intent, or community of purpose with the principal" ( People v. Guerrero, 150 A.D.3d 883, 884, 55 N.Y.S.3d 67 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see

59 N.Y.S.3d 568

People v. Scott, 25 N.Y.3d 1107, 1109–1110, 14 N.Y.S.3d 308, 35 N.E.3d 476 [2015] ). Moreover, "because intent is an invisible operation of the mind, direct evidence is rarely available" ( People v. Rodriguez, 17 N.Y.3d 486, 489, 933 N.Y.S.2d 631, 957 N.E.2d 1133 [2011] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted] ) and, therefore, " it may be inferred from a defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances" ( People v. Callicut, 101 A.D.3d 1256, 1258, 956 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lvs. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1096, 1097, 965 N.Y.S.2d 792, 793, 988 N.E.2d 530, 531 [2013] ).

Proof at trial included that defendant, Taylor and Denno believed that the victim had been physically assaulting defendant's cousin, Samantha Lacroix, with whom the victim had an ongoing relationship. As a result of this and purported threats by the victim to burn down defendant's residence, defendant expressed that he wanted to "teach [the victim] a lesson." Defendant, Denno, Taylor and defendant's wife—Angela Rivers—were in the vicinity of Lacroix's apartment when defendant and Denno encountered the victim. According to Rivers' testimony, after defendant and Denno took hold of the victim's arms, the victim's demeanor was similar to "a child that didn't want to walk with his parent, kind of hanging back a little." Following a number of verbal insults, defendant and the victim attempted to strike one another. Soon thereafter, Taylor reportedly attacked the victim from behind, knocking him to the ground, and defendant, Denno and Taylor commenced kicking the victim, with defendant focusing on the victim's left "chest area." The kicking continued for "[m]aybe a minute, maybe less," where defendant and Denno kicked the victim the way "you would kick a kickball maybe, without running up on the ball," while Taylor would run up to and kick the victim "[l]ike he was punting a football for a field ball." Eventually, at the insistence of Rivers, defendant and Denno stopped kicking the victim, but Taylor continued to kick the victim. Rivers then urged Taylor to stop kicking and defendant attempted to briefly intervene by positioning himself in between the victim and Taylor and telling Taylor to stop, but Taylor pushed defendant aside. The attack ended soon thereafter when Taylor ceased kicking and the victim ran from the area. The victim's body was discovered the following morning along the side of a nearby road. Following the attack, defendant, Taylor and Denno returned to defendant's home and "bragge[d]" about the attack to defendant's son, and defendant "said something to the effect of, [w]e got him." Defendant's son noted that, a couple weeks prior to...