People v. Shoemaker

• Decision Date: 10 July 2014
• Citation: 119 A.D.3d 1073,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05211,989 N.Y.S.2d 539
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kathryn A. SHOEMAKER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

119 A.D.3d 1073
989 N.Y.S.2d 539
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05211

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Kathryn A. SHOEMAKER, Appellant.

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

July 10, 2014.

[989 N.Y.S.2d 540]

Cynthia Feathers, Glens Falls, for appellant.

[989 N.Y.S.2d 541]

Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Nicholas J. Evanovich of counsel), for respondent.

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

ROSE, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), rendered June 29, 2011, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of murder in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree (six counts).

Defendant was involved in a business and sexual relationship with the victim, a 52–year–old excavation contractor who was 19 years her senior. The victim had funded defendant's fledgling trucking business by buying her a tractor-trailer, and he had previously assisted her with money to purchase a karaoke machine, pickup truck and motorcycle. A State Police investigation revealed that, starting in late June 2009, defendant cashed a series of six forged checks drawn on the victim's business account totaling over $35,000 and spent most of the money on items unrelated to her trucking business. The last check, for $5,100, resulted in the victim's account being overdrawn by approximately $1,900. The bank covered the overdraft and notified the victim on August 18, 2009. That same day, the victim telephoned defendant to confront her about the checks. Kurtis Conto, a young man who lived in defendant's home at the time, overheard her conversation with the victim on a speakerphone. According to Conto, the victim “got mad and told [defendant] ... he was going to go to the police if she didn't come over for the checks she had wrote.” Defendant then told Conto that the victim was going too far regarding the checks and she needed to “get rid of him.” According to Conto, defendant also asked him if he would help her dispose of the body if she were to kill the victim.

The next evening, the victim delivered to defendant a camper that he had agreed to let her borrow for a trip and told her to register it in her name the following day. Unbeknownst to the victim, defendant had already registered the camper in her name with forged documents. Later that night, defendant went to the victim's residence, staying until approximately 11:00 p.m. When she returned home, she woke Conto and told him to burn the garbage that she had collected in the kitchen. While doing so, Conto noticed a rope and plastic bag among the burning items; defendant told Conto that she had used them to strangle the victim and that she had then cut his wrist to make it look like a suicide. Defendant also asked Conto to get rid of a handgun that she said she had taken with her, but it had jammed.

The following morning, the victim was found dead on his bed with quarter-inch wide linear abrasion marks on both sides of his neck and a postmortem cut on his wrist. The police later recovered the handgun and, following the completion of their investigation, charged defendant with murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree and six counts of grand larceny in connection with the checks cashed from the victim's business account. Ultimately, defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and each of the grand larceny charges. County Court then sentenced her to life in prison without parole on the murder conviction and six consecutive terms of 2 1/3 to 7 years in prison on the larceny convictions, to be served concurrently with the life sentence. She now appeals, arguing that the convictions are not supported by the weight of the evidence and that the sentences are harsh and excessive.

[989 N.Y.S.2d 542]

Where, as here, a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we will weigh the probative force of conflicting testimony and the strength of conflicting inferences in determining whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 [2006];People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Further, we accord deference to the jury's resolution of the credibility issues involved, given its opportunity to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor throughout this process ( see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672;People v. Portee, 56 A.D.3d 947, 949, 867 N.Y.S.2d 564 [2008],lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 820, 881 N.Y.S.2d 27, 908 N.E.2d 935 [2009];People v. Bolarinwa, 258 A.D.2d 827, 831, 687 N.Y.S.2d 442 [1999],lv. denied93 N.Y.2d 1014, 697 N.Y.S.2d 573, 719 N.E.2d 934 [1999] ).

Defendant's primary contention that Conto lacks credibility is based on his denial that he had ever been arrested despite the existence of a mug shot and booking sheet prepared by the State Police for an incident that occurred in 2008. The State Police, however, confirmed Conto's explanation that he had merely been detained and never arrested or charged with anything in connection with the incident. Defendant also claims that Conto lied when he denied being provided a benefit for his testimony because there was evidence that a State Police captain had written a letter requesting that the Department of Motor Vehicles reinstate Conto's license. As explained by the author of the letter, however, Conto's license plates had been confiscated as part of a search warrant executed at defendant's residence. As a result, when Conto was unable to turn in the plates, his driver's license was suspended. The letter was drafted in order to rectify the situation and allow Conto's license to be...