People v. Shedrick

Decision Date14 December 1984
Citation482 N.Y.S.2d 939,104 A.D.2d 263
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert SHEDRICK, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

David A. Shults, Hornell, for appellant.

Larry D. Bates, Dist. Atty., Bath, for respondent.

Before HANCOCK, J.P., and CALLAHAN, GREEN, O'DONNELL and MOULE, JJ.

MOULE, Justice.

At 9:30 A.M. on January 22, 1980, the bludgeoned bodies of Frank and Virginia Kiff were found by their daughter in their home on West Washington Boulevard in the Village of Bath. The body of Mrs. Kiff, age 74, was in a sitting room near the bathroom; that of Mr. Kiff, age 79, was in the pantry near the kitchen. Both bodies were fully clothed and lay in pools of blood. The kitchen door leading to the rear porch was slightly ajar and the window glass in it had been broken; shards of glass were on the kitchen floor. Mrs. Kiff still had on a large diamond ring on her right hand and her wedding band, but her purse and a desk in the sitting room near her body appeared to have been ransacked. Mr. Kiff was not wearing any jewelry when found; his wallet, located near his body, contained no currency.

The victims were pronounced dead by the Steuben County coroner shortly after 10:00 A.M. that day; the coroner believed they had died between nine and eleven hours earlier. An autopsy revealed that the deaths resulted from multiple blows to the head with a heavy instrument.

Police learned that the Kiffs had been playing bridge on the night of January 21, 1980 at the nearby Wightman Primary School. Witnesses told police that the Kiffs had left the school at approximately 11:20 P.M. Police estimated that it took but 45 seconds to drive from the school to the Kiff residence. A friend of the victims observed that, at the school, Mr. Kiff was wearing a large diamond ring and that Mrs. Kiff, in addition to wearing the diamond ring on her right hand and wedding band, was wearing her engagement ring.

Defendant and two others, Edward Ames and Harry Barnes, were arrested for an unrelated matter, possession of stolen coins, on the afternoon of January 22, 1980. All three, along with defendant's sister, Wanda Shedrick, were later accused of committing the Kiff homicides. Defendant was subsequently charged in a ten-count indictment with two counts each of intentional murder (Penal Law, § 125.25, subd. 1), felony murder (Penal Law, § 125.25, subd. 3), first degree robbery (Penal Law, § 160.15, subd. 1), petit larceny (Penal Law, § 155.25), and one count each of first degree burglary (Penal Law, § 140.30, subd. 2) and fourth degree conspiracy (Penal Law, § 105.10, subd. 2). 1

Defendant moved for a change of venue in October 1980. Defendant's application was subsequently denied by our court on the ground that defendant had failed to show he could not receive a fair trial in Steuben County. 83 A.D.2d 988, 443 N.Y.S.2d 716. It was ordered, however, that the trial be "held in a courthouse other than the one at Bath". Defendant was further informed by the court in its order that he could make another application in the event that jury selection showed that an impartial jury could not be selected. Defendant subsequently made a second application for a change of venue on the eve of jury selection, which we rejected as premature. Jury selection was completed without further application; significantly, defendant failed to exhaust his peremptory challenges.

At trial, the People's case was based entirely on the testimony of one of defendant's alleged accomplices, Edward Ames, and two admissions defendant was alleged to have made while awaiting trial. No physical evidence connecting defendant to the crime was presented.

Ames testified that he met defendant, who was then his roommate, at a Bath pool hall on the afternoon of January 21, 1980. They left to go to the home of Harry Barnes, a mutual friend, "to split up some coins" that Ames had stolen earlier in the day. The three went to the Bath bowling alley to get something to eat, and then took a taxicab to a laundromat on Washington Street where they used a coin change machine to convert 50-cent pieces into quarters. They left the laundromat and walked across the street to a parking lot where they met Wanda, defendant's sister and Ames' girl friend; she was driving a green Maverick. The group decided to drive to defendant's parents' home in Hammondsport where they met defendant's parents and two brothers, Bill, Jr., and Sherlock.

Ames stated that Bill, Jr., drove him, defendant and Barnes to a nearby store to buy beer and gas. After they returned to the Shedricks' home, the group drank beer in the driveway and, later, defendant, Wanda, Barnes and Ames went into the house where defendant explained "a burglary that he wanted to do". Defendant stated that Barnes and Ames were to keep watch outside while Wanda waited in the car and he entered the house. Defendant identified the proposed victims as the owners of the Pontiac dealership in Bath. The four left the Shedrick home at around 10:30 P.M., drove to the primary school in Bath, and drove back to the West Washington Street laundromat. Barnes and Ames walked inside to change more coins as the others waited in the car. Defendant then came in and asked Ames to get the tire iron out of the trunk. Ames was familiar with the iron because he had used it earlier in the day; he obtained the trunk key from Wanda, opened the trunk and laid the iron on the ground behind the car. Ames returned the keys to Wanda and walked back into the laundromat. Ames stated that defendant had been standing next to the car and that he did not see the iron again that evening.

Ames further testified that, shortly thereafter, defendant walked into the laundromat to summon him and Barnes. The four drove to Pine Street, a street intersecting West Washington Boulevard near the Kiffs' home, exited the car and walked to the Kiff residence; no car was in the driveway and no lights were on in the house. Barnes walked to the far side of the house while Ames hid in the back yard. Defendant walked up the back porch to the door. Ames next heard "sounds like glass breaking and a door being pushed in". Ames saw an individual walk by the driveway, apparently taking a shortcut, while defendant was in the house. A few moments later, Ames heard a dog bark and saw a car pull into the Kiff driveway while defendant was still inside the house. Ames saw some lights turned on in the front of the house and then heard the screams of a man and a woman. Through a window visible from his hiding spot, Ames saw a silhouette of a male striking downward onto something laying on the floor.

After he saw defendant run from the house about 15 minutes later, Ames went over to the window and saw a body laying on the floor in a pool of blood. Ames recalled that a table light and an overhead light in the room had been turned on. Ames then ran toward Pine Street and jumped into the waiting car. Wanda drove the group to defendant's and Ames' apartment at 30 Buell Street. Defendant indicated that "it didn't go as planned", walked inside alone and returned wearing different clothing. Wanda then dropped Barnes off near his apartment and drove the others to the Eatons' house on Morris Street. Defendant walked inside alone; Ames followed 15 minutes later.

Defendant and Ames left after watching some television and walked to Ames' nephew's home. During this walk, defendant displayed two rings and some paper currency to Ames. After smoking marijuana with Ames' nephew, defendant and Ames returned to the Eatons' where they spent the night.

Ames testified that upon returning to the apartment he shared with defendant on the following afternoon he opened defendant's closet and saw the tire iron he had taken out of the car the night before. The tire iron had blood and hair on it and there was a lot of blood on the floor; additionally, two rings were on the floor of the closet. Ames testified that defendant later told him that Wanda "had cleaned out the apartment" prior to a police search of the premises.

Ames' credibility was attacked at length during cross-examination. He admitted to convictions of attempted third degree burglary and petit larceny and to a probation violation. On the morning of January 21, he drank a pint of wine and had two hits of phenobarbital before going to the bowling alley, where he had four double seven and sevens and a pitcher of beer. He remembered having four hits of speed during the day but could not recall how many marijuana cigarettes he had smoked. Ames once described his condition as "being super super screwed up". Ames also admitted that he had received the opportunity to plead guilty to third degree burglary in exchange for his testimony. Ames' credibility was further impeached by his admissions that he had changed his account of what happened several times prior to trial and that he had threatened Wanda, after their relationship had soured, with implicating her and defendant in the Kiff homicides. On redirect, Ames explained that he had initially lied to investigators in an attempt to arrange a deal between Wanda and the authorities.

Joseph Eaton, Jr., testified that defendant and Ames arrived at his house around midnight on January 21, 1980, that they left for awhile and then returned before 1:00 A.M. Eaton observed nothing unusual about the pair, although he believed that Ames was intoxicated.

Deputy Sheriff James Woolridge took speedometer readings and mileage timings in an attempt to determine the veracity of Ames' story. It took Woolridge eight minutes to drive from the Shedrick home to the Weston Country Store; 19 minutes to drive from the Shedrick home to a downtown Bath intersection; and two minutes from that intersection to the West Washington Street laundromat.

Bath Police Sergeant Wenban jogged from the Kiff residence to Pine Street; the run lasted one minute and five seconds. He drove from Pine Street to ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Whitley v. Ercole
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 22, 2010
    ...by the trier of fact,” People v. Batista, 235 A.D.2d 631, 632, 652 N.Y.S.2d 645 (3d Dep't 1997) ( quoting People v. Shedrick 104 A.D.2d 263, 274, 482 N.Y.S.2d 939 (4th Dep't 1984), aff'd 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388, 489 N.E.2d 1290 (1985)), a trial judge has the authority to keep from ......
  • People v. Thibodeau
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 30, 1999
    ...was contradicted by her later statements and testimony did not render it incredible as a matter of law (see, People v. Shedrick, 104 A.D.2d 263, 274, 482 N.Y.S.2d 939, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388, 489 N.E.2d 1290, rearg. denied 67 N.Y.2d 758, 500 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 490 N.E.2d 1234). ......
  • People v. Wrigglesworth
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 5, 1994
    ...of belief because it is manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience or self-contradictory' " (People v. Shedrick, 104 A.D.2d 263, 274, 482 N.Y.S.2d 939, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388, 489 N.E.2d 1290, quoting People v. Stroman, 83 A.D.2d 370, 373, 444 N.Y.S.2d ......
  • People v. Dupleasis
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 27, 2013
    ...N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672), and that testimony was not incredible as a matter of law ( see People v. Shedrick, 104 A.D.2d 263, 274, 482 N.Y.S.2d 939, affd.66 N.Y.2d 1015, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388, 489 N.E.2d 1290, rearg. denied67 N.Y.2d 758, 500 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 490 N.E.2d 123......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT