People v. Spruill
| Decision Date | 04 November 2002 |
| Citation | 750 N.Y.S.2d 312,299 A.D.2d 374 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>TASKER SPRUILL, Appellant. |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On October 22, 1993, Tracey Thomas was shot and killed as he sat in his car outside a game room operated by the defendant, who was known as "Pike." During the course of the police investigation of the incident, a man named "Pike" was identified as a suspect. The police attempted to locate the defendant, but were unable to do so until August 1997 when he was apprehended in Baltimore. When he was apprehended he claimed that his name was Kevin Michael Mulberry.
At trial, two eyewitnesses identified the defendant as the shooter. As evidence of consciousness of guilt, one of the witnesses was permitted to testify regarding an implied threat made by a fellow inmate concerning his testimony in this case. The People also contended that the defendant's alteration of a tattoo on his arm constituted evidence of consciousness of guilt. The People and the defendant stipulated that the defendant "at one time had a small tattoo on * * * his left arm" which said "Pike." At the time of trial, the word "Pike" had been covered with a picture of a panther, which was shown to the jury.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the testimony regarding the implied threat. The witness' testimony of his conversation with the fellow inmate circumstantially connected the defendant to the threat (see People v Cotto, 222 AD2d 345; People v Kornegay, 164 AD2d 868). The witness' credibility was a matter for the jury.
The trial court also providently exercised its discretion in permitting the alteration of the defendant's tattoo to be considered as evidence of consciousness of guilt (see People v Torres, 179 AD2d 696). While there was no direct evidence as to when the defendant altered his tattoo, there was sufficient evidence from which it could be inferred that the tattoo was altered after the shooting. Further, the trial court gave a comprehensive instruction regarding evidence of consciousness of guilt, advising the jury that such proof has slight value, must be scrutinized carefully, and that there could be innocent explanations for such conduct.
While the prosecutor improperly implied during his summation that the defendant should have called his brothers, who were present at the crime scene, as witnesses, that error does not warrant reversal (see People v Gonzalez, 97 AD2d 423).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.
Goldstein, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment, on the law, and to order a new trial, with the following memorandum:
I disagree with the majority, and would hold that the improper admission of evidence of purported intimidation of a witness and the prosecutor's arguments in summation warrant reversal of the defendant's conviction and a new trial.
During the course of the trial the prosecutor, over objection, elicited testimony from a key eyewitness that about four months prior to the trial an unidentified inmate in Riker's Island Correctional Facility accused him of being a "snitch" and showed him a copy of a document containing his prior statements. The witness claimed that his name was typed on the document. This testimony was admitted as evidence that the defendant attempted to intimidate the witness, demonstrating consciousness of guilt.
Three to four months prior to trial, certain police reports had been released to the defendant. However, the witness' name had been redacted from the reports. Further, it is undisputed that the prosecutor only released a copy of the grand jury minutes to the defense counsel at the commencement of the trial. These undisputed facts indicated that the documents shown to the witness could not have been documents released by the prosecutor to the defendant. The evidence was thus insufficient to circumstantially...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...to show the defendant's consciousness of guilt (see People v. Christiani, 96 A.D.3d 870, 871–872, 946 N.Y.S.2d 235 ; People v. Spruill, 299 A.D.2d 374, 375, 750 N.Y.S.2d 312 ). To the extent that the court's admission of other phone calls made by the defendant was error, the error was harml......
-
People v. Spruill
...judgment of conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by decision and order of this Court dated November 4, 2002 (see People v. Spruill , 299 A.D.2d 374, 750 N.Y.S.2d 312 ).In March 2016, the defendant moved to vacate the judgment, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(b) on the ground that ......
-
People v. Anderson
...546; People v. Myrick, 31 A.D.3d 668, 669, 818 N.Y.S.2d 287; People v. Hendricks, 4 A.D.3d 798, 799, 771 N.Y.S.2d 440; People v. Spruill, 299 A.D.2d 374, 375, 750 N.Y.S.2d 312). "As the probative value of this testimony exceeded its prejudicial potential, failure to conduct a Ventimiglia he......
-
People v. Christiani
...told them to “stop by” and visit the witness, and that they were “hoping that [the witness] wasn't testifying” ( see People v. Spruill, 299 A.D.2d 374, 750 N.Y.S.2d 312;People v. Cotto, 222 A.D.2d 345, 635 N.Y.S.2d 623). During jury selection, the County Court properly denied the defendant'......