People v. Simon-Roberson

• Decision Date: 24 August 2022
• Docket Number: 2018–05153,Ind. No. 8885/15
• Citation: 208 A.D.3d 805,172 N.Y.S.3d 626 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Tyshawn SIMON–ROBERSON, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

208 A.D.3d 805

172 N.Y.S.3d 626 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Tyshawn SIMON–ROBERSON, appellant.

2018–05153

Ind. No. 8885/15

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

Argued—June 24, 2022

August 24, 2022

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Hannah Kon of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jordan Cerruti of counsel), for respondent.

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vincent M. Del Guidice, J.), rendered February 13, 2018, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, attempted assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress a certain statement he made to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree ( Penal Law § 125.20[1] ), attempted assault in the first degree (id. §§ 110.00, 120.10[1]), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (id. § 265.03[3]), in connection with an incident involving two rival gangs that occurred on October 26, 2015, on a crowded street in Brooklyn. During the incident, one victim was fatally shot. A second victim was shot in the leg and survived.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement made by the defendant to a detective while the defendant was being fingerprinted during the booking process. The subject statement was spontaneous and was not "triggered by any police questioning or other conduct which reasonably could have been expected to elicit a declaration from him" ( People v. South, 200 A.D.3d 812, 813, 155 N.Y.S.3d 132 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Goldson, 136 A.D.3d 1053, 1054, 26 N.Y.S.3d 543 ; People v. Barley, 82 A.D.3d 996, 996, 919 N.Y.S.2d 86 ).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Bazile, 199 A.D.3d 823, 824, 154 N.Y.S.3d 278 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear...