People v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 16 December 2020
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 4800/16,2018–02347
• Citation: 189 A.D.3d 1270,134 N.Y.S.3d 278 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Taariq STEPHENS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

189 A.D.3d 1270

134 N.Y.S.3d 278 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Taariq STEPHENS, appellant.

2018–02347

Ind. No. 4800/16

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

Argued - November 19, 2020

December 16, 2020

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant.

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

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deborah Dowling, J.), rendered January 16, 2018, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child relating to, inter alia, the fatal shooting of the then 16–year–old victim. At trial, the People introduced into evidence video surveillance footage, which depicted the defendant, while holding a firearm, forcing his way inside the victim's apartment and shooting her. In addition, the People presented evidence that, shortly after the shooting, the victim made certain statements to law enforcement officials, wherein she identified the defendant as her assailant. The victim's friend, who witnessed the incident, also identified the defendant as the person who shot the victim.

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying the defendant's request to instruct the jury with respect to manslaughter in the second degree as a lesser-included offense of intentional murder. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that the defendant acted recklessly when he shot the victim (see CPL 300.50[1] ; People v. Rivera, 23 N.Y.3d 112, 124, 989 N.Y.S.2d 446, 12 N.E.3d 444 ; People v. Greene, 87 A.D.3d 551, 928 N.Y.S.2d 74 ; People v. Dickerson, 67 A.D.3d 700, 700–701, 889 N.Y.S.2d 199 ).

We also agree with the Supreme Court's determination admitting into evidence the surveillance video footage and still images from the video, as the People presented sufficient evidence that the video and still images accurately represented the events being depicted (see People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 84, 688 N.Y.S.2d 101, 710 N.E.2d 665 ; People v. Sonam, 180 A.D.3d 717, 719, 115 N.Y.S.3d 709 ; People v. Trowell, 172 A.D.3d 1112, 1113, 98 N.Y.S.3d 633 ).

The defendant's contention regarding the admission of the victim's statements to the police is without merit. The defendant's right of confrontation was not violated, since the primary purpose in questioning the victim was to address an ongoing emergency, and the victim's statements were not testimonial in nature (see Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 ; Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53–54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 ; People v. Duhs, 16 N.Y.3d 405, 922 N.Y.S.2d 843, 947 N.E.2d 617 ; People v. Nieves–Andino, 9...