People v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 23 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 123.,123. |
| Citation | 9 N.Y.3d 129,878 N.E.2d 969,848 N.Y.S.2d 554 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John TAYLOR, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Three years ago, in People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88, 783 N.Y.S.2d 485, 817 N.E.2d 341 (2004), we held that the jury deadlock instruction under CPL 400.27 violates our State Constitution. Because a deadlock instruction is both essential to a death penalty statute and necessary to conform with principles of due process, we were compelled to
invalidate the entire sentencing portion of the statute. We are now asked to decide whether an earlier attempt by a trial court to minimize the coercive effect of the flawed jury deadlock instruction warrants revisiting the issue of that instruction's constitutionality as applied to the present defendant. We hold that under the doctrine of stare decisis, defendant's death sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for resentencing.
In May 2000, defendant John Taylor and a coworker, Craig Godineaux, plotted to commit a robbery. Although Godineaux suggested robbing livery cabs, defendant convinced him that they should focus instead on fast-food restaurants as defendant was familiar with them, having previously worked at McDonald's and Wendy's. On the evening of Wednesday May 24, the two met near defendant's home in Queens with a plan to rob a Wendy's restaurant where defendant previously worked as an assistant manager. When the two met, defendant was carrying a roll of duct tape in a black plastic bag, a briefcase "to hold the money" and a loaded .380 semiautomatic handgun, which he had purchased on the street, in his "fanny pack" along with an extra ammunition clip.
Defendant and Godineaux arrived at Wendy's at approximately 10:55 P.M., minutes before closing time. The two ordered food and ate separately. Defendant took a moment to speak with the store manager, Jean Auguste, a former coworker. While eating, defendant "leered" at the two remaining customers. At approximately 11:15 P.M., one of the employees let those customers out of the restaurant and relocked the door. Shortly thereafter, defendant entered the employee area behind the counter and descended the stairs to the basement. Defendant entered the manager's office and pointed a gun at Auguste while demanding all of the money in the safe. Auguste took about $2,400 in bills and coins from the safe and put it in defendant's briefcase and bag, along with that evening's surveillance video. In response to Auguste's pleas, defendant assured him that he would only duct-tape the employees so he could get away. Auguste then got on the intercom and stated "tell everybody to come downstairs, we are having a meeting, it is important." Jaquoine Johnson heard the announcement and led everyone downstairs with Godineaux following. Once all of the employees had descended the stairs, Godineaux ripped a phone cord from a wall near the top of the stairs and joined the others.
Along with Johnson and Auguste, there were five other employees in the store — Anita Smith, Patricio Castro, Jeremy Mele, Ramon Nazario and Ali Ibadat. Defendant ordered them all to lie face down on the floor with their hands behind their backs. In the interim, defendant obtained the key to the restaurant's entrance from one of the employees. Meanwhile, Godineaux donned gloves, which he had brought with him, and with duct tape bound each of the employee's hands and mouth.1 Auguste, who was having trouble breathing, managed to free his hands and remove the tape from his mouth. In response, Godineaux punched him in the face, yelled at him and retaped his hands and mouth.
Once all of the employees were bound, they were led to the nearby walk-in refrigerator and ordered to their knees. Godineaux then placed clear plastic bags, which defendant had retrieved from another room, over six of the employees' heads, and defendant placed a bag over the remaining employee's head. Johnson, who was able to see through his bag, saw defendant shoot Auguste in the head. After the shot, Smith started screaming "what happened." When another shot was fired, the screaming ceased. Defendant passed the gun to Godineaux and said "finish them." Godineaux, in turn, shot Nazario, Castro, Meli, Ibadat and Johnson — all in their heads and at close range. Following the shooting, defendant and Godineaux went upstairs, unlocked the door, exited the restaurant and relocked the door. Only Castro and Johnson survived.2 The other five employees
all died from gunshot wounds to the head.3 At some point after defendant and Godineaux left, Castro regained consciousness, got free and called 911 for help using the office fax machine telephone. Defendant and Godineaux eventually parted ways.
Defendant quickly became the focus of a police investigation of the shootings. He was identified, in separate photo arrays, by a person who saw him leaving Wendy's that night and by one of the customers who was present in the restaurant when defendant had arrived.4 The police also learned that defendant was a former employee who had been fired from this Wendy's location.5 Upon learning from news reports that the police had identified him as a suspect in the shootings, defendant went to his sister's home in Suffolk County on the morning of May 26. However, the New York City Police Department had already contacted the Suffolk County police, who had agreed to arrange for surveillance of the home.
At around 4:00 P.M. that day, a 911 operator received a call from someone at the sister's house stating that a child was injured while riding a bicycle. The officers, responding to that call, were intercepted and shown a picture of defendant. When the responding officers arrived, they arrested defendant while the medics were treating the child. The police found the loaded .380 handgun that defendant used at Wendy's along with an extra clip in the "fanny pack" he was wearing. Inside his sister's home, the police also found defendant's suitcase which contained some of the clothing he wore during the shootings, the surveillance tape, approximately $1,500 in cash and one live .380 round.
Thereafter, three New York City police officers drove defendant to a detective squad in Queens. As defendant was placed in the car, he said The officers tried to calm defendant, but he
continued to blurt out comments about how his life was in jeopardy because he was the only one who saw Craig shoot everyone at Wendy's. Defendant was then advised of his Miranda rights but he continued "rambling on" about Craig.6 The police continued to assure defendant that he would be heard in full when they arrived at the precinct, and after about 10 minutes he stopped talking.7
At the precinct, defendant was again read his Miranda rights in the interview room and at 6:15 P.M., then-Detective Elizabeth Curcio began to interview him. The interview lasted just over one hour. During this time defendant made an oral statement and agreed to execute a written statement if Curcio drafted it for him. Curcio drafted an 11-page statement over the course of the next three hours. The statement was signed by Curcio and defendant. According...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Billiot v. Epps
... ... " A deputy at the Harrison County Jail, where Billiot was confined prior to his conviction, said that he would refer to himself as different people, including Hitler and General Lafitte. Billiot also expressed a belief in werewolves ... Billiot's mental disturbances continued ... 1. New York's death penalty statute has been declared unconstitutional, and it has not been rewritten by its legislature. See People v. Taylor, 9 N.Y.3d 129, 848 N.Y.S.2d 554, 878 N.E.2d 969 (2007); People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88, 783 N.Y.S.2d 485, 817 N.E.2d 341 (2004). In Illinois, the ... ...
- State v. Santiago
-
People v. Wortham
...if an extraordinary combination of factors undermines the reasoning and practical viability of our prior decision"]; People v. Taylor, 9 N.Y.3d 129, 149, 848 N.Y.S.2d 554, 878 N.E.2d 969 [2007] ["It is well settled that ‘(s)tare decisis is the preferred course because it promotes the evenha......
-
U.S. v. Fell
... ... As Justice Story famously observed, "[t]he constitution of the United States was designed for the common and equal benefit of all the people of the United States." Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 348, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816) (emphasis added). Thus, if a district court's ... See Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 530, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975) ("[T]he fair-cross-section requirement [i]s fundamental to the jury trial ... ...
-
Overruling by implication and the consequent burden upon bench and bar.
...police protection remained good law under the "merely distilled" and by no means "new" rule it announced in Valdez. (1) People v. Taylor, 9 N.Y.3d 129, 148, 878 N.E.2d 969, 978, 848 N.Y.S.2d 554, 563 (2007) (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (2) Taylor, 9 N.Y.3d at 148, 878 N.E.......
-
The independent jurist: an analysis of judge Robert S. Smith's dissenting opinions.
...note 2, at 625. (192) 3 N.Y.3d 88, 817 N.E.2d 341, 783 N.Y.S.2d 485 (2004). (193) Id. at 99, 817 N.E.2d at 344, 783 N.Y.S.2d at 488. (194) 9 N.Y.3d 129, 878 N.E.2d 969, 848 N.Y.S.2d 554 (195) Id. at 156, 878 N.E.2d at 984, 848 N.Y.S.2d at 569 (Smith, J., concurring). (196) Smith, supra note......
-
To act or not to act: will New York's defeated death penalty be resurrected?
...where it belongs." (342) This decision should reside with the legislature (1.) See People v. LaValle, 817 N.E.2d 341 (N.Y. 2004). (2.) 878 N.E.2d 969 (N.Y. (3.) See Alan Feuer, Murderer's Sentence Tossed Out, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 24, 2007, at B3. (4.) See Marnie Eisenstadt, 10 Years Later: Deat......
-
Is the New York State Court of Appeals still "friendless?" An empirical study of amicus curiae participation.
...of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio, 859 N.E.2d Freedom of religion 459 (N.Y. 2006) (constitutional aspects) 6 27 People v. Taylor, 878 N.E.2d 969 (N.Y. Death penalty (constitutional 2007 aspects) 6 (1) Judith S. Kaye, One Judge's View of "Friends of the Court", N.Y. ST. BAR. J., Apr. 1989, a......