People v. Stackhouse

• Decision Date: 26 March 2021
• Docket Number: 9,KA 16-00757
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shakeith STACKHOUSE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

194 A.D.3d 113

144 N.Y.S.3d 779

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Shakeith STACKHOUSE, Defendant-Appellant.

9

KA 16-00757

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

Entered: March 26, 2021

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (KRISTEN MCDERMOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

OPINION AND ORDER

Opinion by Troutman, J.:

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the facts and on the law, counts two and three of the indictment are dismissed against defendant, and a new trial is granted on the remaining counts of the indictment against him.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of one count of murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25 [3] ), two counts of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [1], [3]), one count of conspiracy in the fourth degree (§ 105.10 [1]), and one count of criminal possession of a weapon (CPW) in the fourth degree (§ 265.01 [2]). For the reasons discussed herein, we reverse the judgment, dismiss the robbery counts of the indictment against defendant, and grant him a new trial on the remaining counts.

I. Facts

On October 14, 2013, the victim stumbled home, a fatal knife wound in his back. He was pronounced dead that evening. Two days later, the police interviewed defendant, who provided a video-recorded statement. Defendant admitted that, on the evening of the crime, he was on South Salina Street in the City of Syracuse with three other young men—a cousin of his, a juvenile, and Tony Comer, Jr.—when the victim approached them for the purpose of buying drugs. Comer used the promise of drugs to lure the victim into a cut in the roadway and steal his wallet. When Comer and the victim came out of the cut, the victim was shirtless. Comer was smiling, holding the victim's torn, white T-shirt. The victim left, shouting that he would come back with a gun and start shooting. Comer told the others that the victim still had $10 on his person, and the juvenile stated that he wanted the victim's last $10. About 10 or 15 minutes later, the victim returned wearing a sweatshirt, looking for his wallet. Defendant, his cousin, and the juvenile fought the victim. Defendant admitted that, by fighting the victim, he was helping the juvenile to acquire the victim's last $10 and that, during the fight, defendant stabbed the victim once in the back using a knife that he had concealed in his sleeve.

Defendant and the three other young men were indicted jointly on counts of felony murder in the second degree (count one), robbery in the first degree (counts two and three), and conspiracy in the fourth degree (count four), and defendant was also charged with CPW in the fourth degree (count six). With respect to counts two and three against defendant, a bill of particulars alleged:

"[T]he offense occurred ... between ... 7:00 p.m. and 7:54 p.m.... in an area of ... three [city] blocks ... The police located the victim's wallet and some of its contents in a vacant field approximately a block from [the corner of South Salina Street and East Beard Avenue]. The defendant confessed to the police ... and described these locations and what occurred ... [He] was aware the victim's wallet was taken and he was aware that the victim had ten dollars and he assisted with taking or attempting to take ten dollars during this entire chain of events that made up the robbery."

On July 18, 2014, defendant wrote a letter to the judge, stating that he had seen defense counsel only twice in the nine months he had been in jail, and that counsel was ignoring his requests to meet and to provide copies of his paperwork. Defendant requested new assigned counsel. County Court did not address defendant's complaints for another six months.

Meanwhile, defendant filed an omnibus motion in which he sought, inter alia, suppression of his video-recorded statement. The court convened a Huntley hearing on November 19, 2014. Before the hearing commenced, defense counsel mentioned his desire to submit a list of necessary redactions in the event that the court were to refuse to suppress the statement. The court eventually denied that part of defendant's omnibus motion seeking suppression of the statement, at which time defense counsel put on record that the court had previously indicated that it would allow the defense to request redactions. However, no redactions would ever be requested.

On January 27, 2015, the court invited defendant to talk about the complaints that he made about defense counsel over six months earlier. Defendant explained that he and defense counsel were "not seeing eye to eye." The court responded:

"[Y]ou should get along with your lawyer, I guess, about seeing eye to eye. I don't know in terms of what that means, necessarily. But this is on for trial. And I think you and [defense counsel] should get along and communicate. And if you want some more communication with [defense counsel], I'm sure he'll do that as well. But this case is on for trial."

On March 30, 2015, defendant submitted a pro se motion for assignment of new counsel, which the court denied.

On April 28, 2015, defendant wrote a letter informing the court that another attorney was willing to represent him without pushing back the trial date. The court assigned her to represent defendant, emphasizing that the trial date was fixed for May 11, 2015, and would not be pushed back.

Defendant's jury trial commenced on the scheduled date. The People presented defendant's video-recorded police statement, wherein defendant admitted that he fought the victim, that by doing so defendant was helping the juvenile to acquire the victim's last $10, that defendant wielded a knife during the fight, and that during the fight defendant stabbed the victim in the back using the knife. The video was played for the jury virtually in its entirety, allowing the jury to hear defendant's unredacted reference to his prior history of incarceration. The People also presented a surveillance video of the corner of South Salina Street and East Beard Avenue during the relevant time period. The surveillance video depicted the victim wandering around the area, eventually walking out of frame accompanied by three men at 7:46 p.m., and stumbling back into frame alone three minutes later. Testimony of a police officer, as well as photographs in evidence, established that investigators discovered the victim's wallet lying in an open field behind a nearby library. Another photograph depicted the victim's unstained, white T-shirt lying in a nearby patch of grass, and an ATM surveillance photograph depicted Comer using the victim's bank card to withdraw cash at 7:56 p.m.

In summation, the People argued that there was a single robbery: "[Defendant] was present ... during the entire incident ... [The defense] repeatedly tried to tease this out as separate incidents. This was one entire robbery. [The victim's] wallet was taken, certainly. And then ten dollars was taken." The jury found defendant guilty on all counts.

II. Legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence

Defendant contends that the conviction with respect to counts one, two, three, and six of the indictment is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, and he further contends that the verdict with respect to those counts is against the weight of the evidence.

A. Counts one and six (felony murder and CPW)

As a preliminary matter, defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to counts one and six of the indictment is, in part, unpreserved for our review because defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal was not " ‘specifically directed’ " at each of the errors alleged ( People v. Gray , 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ; see People v. Murray , 191 A.D.3d 1324, ––––, 140 N.Y.S.3d 645, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 00722, at *1 [4th Dept. 2021] ). Nevertheless, to the extent that defendant's contention with respect to those counts is unpreserved, we exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a] ).

Defendant contends that his conviction with respect to count one of the indictment, charging felony murder, is based on legally insufficient evidence inasmuch as his confession to the underlying predicate felony of robbery or attempted robbery lacked corroboration (see CPL 60.50 ). We reject that contention. Under CPL 60.50, "[a] person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him [or her] without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed." All the statute requires is " ‘some proof, of whatever weight, that a crime was committed by someone’ " ( People v. Chico , 90 N.Y.2d 585, 589, 665 N.Y.S.2d 5, 687 N.E.2d 1288 [1997], quoting People v. Daniels , 37 N.Y.2d 624, 629, 376 N.Y.S.2d 436, 339 N.E.2d 139 [1975] ). Although such proof may be direct or circumstantial, it must be proof of the fact of the crime (see People v. Cuozzo , 292 N.Y. 85, 92, 54 N.E.2d 20 [1944] ). Proof that merely corroborates portions of the statement in which the confession or admission is made will not suffice (see id. at 93, 54 N.E.2d 20 ). The purpose of the rule is to prevent a conviction of a crime based on a confession when, in fact, no crime has been committed by anyone (see Chico , 90 N.Y.2d at 590, 665 N.Y.S.2d 5, 687 N.E.2d 1288 ; Cuozzo , 292 N.Y. at 92, 54 N.E.2d 20 ).

Where, as here, a defendant is charged with felony murder based on his or her confession or admission to causing the death of a person in furtherance of a robbery or an attempted robbery, CPL 60.50 does not require independent corroboration of the defendant's confession to the underlying predicate felony, i.e., robbery or attempted robbery (see People v....