People v. Sanchez

• Decision Date: 13 September 2018
• Docket Number: No. 132 SSM 15,132 SSM 15
• Citation: 112 N.E.3d 312,32 N.Y.3d 1021,87 N.Y.S.3d 135
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alexis SANCHEZ, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

32 N.Y.3d 1021
112 N.E.3d 312
87 N.Y.S.3d 135

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Alexis SANCHEZ, Appellant.

No. 132 SSM 15

Court of Appeals of New York.

September 13, 2018

112 N.E.3d 313

87 N.Y.S.3d 136

Law Office of Richard Wojszwilo, Austin, Texas (Richard Wojszwilo of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Andrew J. Zapata of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

32 N.Y.3d 1022

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The Appellate Division stated the correct standard of review when it concluded that,

"viewing the evidence presented at trial in a neutral light ..., and weighing the relative probative force of the conflicting testimony and evidence, as well as the relative strength of the conflicting inferences to be drawn therefrom, and according deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony and observe their demeanor, ...

32 N.Y.3d 1023

"the jury was justified in finding that the People sustained their burden of disproving defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt" ( 157 A.D.3d 107, 116, 118, 68 N.Y.S.3d 45 [1st Dept. 2017] ; see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643–644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 [2006] ; People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 [2004], cert denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828 [2004] ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ).

To the extent the Appellate Division cited to certain prior decisions (see 157 A.D.3d at 109, 68 N.Y.S.3d 45, citing People v. Castillo, 223 A.D.2d 481, 481, 637 N.Y.S.2d 84 [1st Dept. 1996] ; People v. Bartley, 219 A.D.2d 566, 567, 631 N.Y.S.2d 690 [1st Dept. 1995], lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 898, 641 N.Y.S.2d 227, 663 N.E.2d 1257 [1st Dept. 1995] ;

87 N.Y.S.3d 137

112 N.E.3d 314

People v. Corporan, 169 A.D.2d 643, 643, 564 N.Y.S.2d 775 [1st Dept. 1991], lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 959, 570 N.Y.S.2d 493, 573 N.E.2d 581 [1st Dept. 1991] ) containing language that is inconsistent with our more recent guidance regarding weight of the evidence (see People v. Delamota, 18 N.Y.3d 107, 116–117, 936 N.Y.S.2d 614, 960 N.E.2d 383 [2011] ), those decisions should not be followed.

Nevertheless, a review of the Court's analysis demonstrates that the Appellate Division applied the correct standard from Romero and Bleakley, which involves a "two-step approach" wherein the court must (1) "determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable[;]" and (2) "weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" ( 157 A.D.3d 107, 68 N.Y.S.3d 45, citing People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ; Romero, 7 N.Y.3d at 643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ; Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Thus, the incorrect language, in the context of the court's written decision as a whole, did not "manifest a lack of application of that review power [to] which appellants are entitled" ( Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 496, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ; see Romero, 7 N.Y.3d at 646, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

Defendant's claim that his motion to suppress certain statements to the police was improperly denied is without merit. There is sufficient record support for the lower courts' findings that the confidential informant had a basis for his knowledge of the information he transmitted (see People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398, 403, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 488 N.E.2d 439 [1985] ) and that such information was reliable (see People v. DiFalco, 80 N.Y.2d 693, 696–699, 594 N.Y.S.2d 679, 610 N.E.2d 352 [1993] ; People v. Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483, 489–490, 438 N.Y.S.2d 754, 420 N.E.2d 946 [1981] ).

Mr. Sanchez was convicted of second-degree murder and possession of a weapon. There is no dispute that he fired the fatal shots; the question is whether the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not justified in

32 N.Y.3d 1024

doing so. Two Justices of the Appellate Division concluded the evidence was not sufficient to convict him; three did. I agree with the majority (of our Court) that much of the Appellate Division's opinion misstates the law. I also agree with the majority that much of the Appellate Division's opinion correctly states the law. My disagreement is what to do about it. The factual record below is complex; the correct and incorrect legal propositions are more like a soup than a sandwich, so that we cannot disassemble it to find the meat. Moreover, the Appellate Division split 3–2. A majority of our Court concludes, without directly saying so, that none of the three Justices in the majority below would vote differently if the incorrect statements were excised from the opinion. I do not know that, and do not know how we can know that. But I do know who does...