People v. Vanderhorst

Citation117 A.D.3d 1197,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03307,984 N.Y.S.2d 688
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jah–Lah VANDERHORST, Appellant.
Decision Date08 May 2014
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

117 A.D.3d 1197
984 N.Y.S.2d 688
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03307

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jah–Lah VANDERHORST, Appellant.

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

May 8, 2014.


[984 N.Y.S.2d 690]


Danielle Neroni Reilly, Albany, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), for respondent.


Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.

GARRY, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered August 8, 2012 in Albany County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

In April 2011, defendant killed the victim by stabbing him in the chest during a knife fight at Hoffman Park in the City of Albany. Numerous witnesses watched the altercation, most of whom, like defendant and the victim, were teenagers; one individual video-recorded the fight on a cell phone. Defendant and codefendant Dhoruba Shuaib, who was accused of aiding defendant during the fight, were jointly indicted on one count of murder in the second degree; their trials were later severed.1 Defendant stipulated at his trial that he had caused the victim's death, but maintained that his actions were justified because he believed that the victim—with whom he had been feuding for many months—was going to kill him. The jury acquitted defendant of murder in the second degree, but convicted him of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision. He appeals.

Initially, defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence, asserting that the People failed to establish that he had the requisite intent, and failed to disprove his justification defense. This challenge was not preserved for appellate review by a sufficiently specific trial motion for dismissal ( see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ). However, defendant also contends that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence and, in reviewing this claim, we necessarily determine whether the elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the justification defense was disproven ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007];People v. Hughes, 111 A.D.3d 1170, 1171, 975 N.Y.S.2d 507 [2013] ).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There was testimony from a number of the individuals

[984 N.Y.S.2d 691]

who watched the fight, and the video-recording, which depicts the encounter beginning shortly after the fight commenced, was played for the jury. The recording reveals that defendant and the victim were both armed with knives throughout most of the altercation, but that the victim consistently backed away and never struck at defendant, while defendant advanced toward the victim, lunged at him, stepped around the victim to prevent him from retreating, and, at one point, threw a bicycle at him. The victim can be heard early in the encounter asking defendant to put the knife down and “give me a fair one,” and onlookers are heard repeatedly calling defendant's name and urging him to stop, fight with his hands, and put down the knife. At several points in the altercation, bystanders attempted unsuccessfully to pull defendant away from the victim or step between them. Ultimately, the victim backed into a fence as defendant and Shuaib approached; defendant then lunged toward the victim, stabbed him and ran away. The victim briefly pursued defendant before collapsing.

Defendant and several of his relatives testified about a longstanding history of animosity that they said was instigated by the victim, who had allegedly taunted defendant, chased him, and otherwise harassed him on multiple occasions. Defense witnesses described various efforts to defuse these hostilities, including complaints to police, rides that defendant arranged to avoid meeting the victim, and a confrontation between the mothers of defendant and the victim, in which they agreed to try to keep their sons apart. Witnesses testified about previous altercations between the two, including an incident in which defendant threw a brick, another in which, as stipulated between defendant and the People, the victim told his mother that defendant had chased him with a knife, and an alleged threat by defendant to stab the victim on the night before he did so. Defendant testified that the victim initiated the encounter in the park by approaching defendant, armed and accompanied by several friends; defendant said that he did not try to run away because he did not believe he could outrun the victim—who was a high school track star—that he threw the bicycle to try to disarm the victim, and that he did not swing at the victim until his efforts to “get [his] distance from [him]” failed. On cross-examination, however, he acknowledged, among other things, that he had heard the victim urge him to put down the knife, and that he could have run away.

As defendant notes, there were inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts of the details of the encounter in the park, in particular as to what transpired before the video began and whether the fight was instigated by defendant or the victim. However, these discrepancies, considered with the video, created credibility issues to be resolved by the jury. According deference to the jury's assessments and upon our own review of the evidence—including that pertaining to defendant's intent and his justification defense—we find no reason to disturb the verdict ( see People v. Brooks, 32 A.D.3d 616, 616–617, 819 N.Y.S.2d 810 [2006],lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 844, 830 N.Y.S.2d 703, 862 N.E.2d 795 [2007];People v. Di Bella, 277 A.D.2d 699, 700–701, 715 N.Y.S.2d 777 [2000],lv. denied96 N.Y.2d 758, 725 N.Y.S.2d 284, 748 N.E.2d 1080 [2001];compare People v. Jones, 59 A.D.3d 864, 866–867, 873 N.Y.S.2d 773 [2009] ).

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting audio recordings of two calls made to 911 by observers during the altercation, in which the callers described the participants, begged for police assistance and—in one of the calls—repeatedly shouted at defendant, by name,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • People v. McCray
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • July 26, 2016
    ...238, 804 N.E.2d 402 [2003] ; People v. Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513, 522, 522 N.Y.S.2d 837, 517 N.E.2d 515 [1987] ; People v. Vanderhorst, 117 A.D.3d 1197, 1200, 984 N.Y.S.2d 688 [2014] ). Trial courts are accorded “wide discretion” in determining whether the standard of admissibility of 53 Misc.3d......
  • People v. Every
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 19, 2017
    ...121 A.D.3d 1294, 1295, 994 N.Y.S.2d 716 [2014], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1164, 15 N.Y.S.3d 296, 36 N.E.3d 99 [2015] ; People v. Vanderhorst, 117 A.D.3d 1197, 1199–1200, 984 N.Y.S.2d 688 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1089, 1 N.Y.S.3d 16, 25 N.E.3d 353 [2014] ). Critically, it was undisputed that ......
  • People v. Weaver
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 20, 2018
    ...or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v. Vanderhorst, 117 A.D.3d 1197, 1201–1202, 984 N.Y.S.2d 688 [2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 1089, 1 N.Y.S.3d 16, 25 N.E.3d 353 [2014] ; People v. Timmons, 78 A.D.3d 1241, 1245, 910 N.Y.......
  • People v. Nafi
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 2, 2015
    ...been preserved for our review (People v. Carncross, 14 N.Y.3d 319, 325, 901 N.Y.S.2d 112, 927 N.E.2d 532 ; see People v. Vanderhorst, 117 A.D.3d 1197, 1198, 984 N.Y.S.2d 688, lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1089, 1 N.Y.S.3d 16, 25 N.E.3d 353 ; see generally People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2018 Contents
    • August 2, 2018
    ...corroborated by the testimony at trial of the caller and the police oicers who responded to the 911 call. People v. Vandershorst, 117 A.D.3d 1197, 987 N.Y.S.2d 688 (3d Dept. 2014). In manslaughter prosecution, trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting audio recordings of two cal......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2020 Contents
    • August 2, 2020
    ...corroborated by the testimony at trial of the caller and the police oicers who responded to the 911 call. People v. Vandershorst, 117 A.D.3d 1197, 987 N.Y.S.2d 688 (3d Dept. 2014). In manslaughter prosecution, trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting audio recordings of two cal......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2015 Contents
    • August 2, 2015
    ...and not a participant in the event. Here the statements on the tapes were made by an unknown bystander. People v. Vandershorst, 117 A.D.3d 1197, 987 N.Y.S.2d 688 (3d Dept. 2014). In manslaughter prosecution, trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting audio recordings of two calls......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books New York Objections
    • May 3, 2022
    ...indicia of reliability” that rendered them admissible under the present-sense impression hearsay exception. People v. Vandershorst, 117 A.D.3d 1197, 987 N.Y.S.2d 688 (3d Dept. 2014). In manslaughter prosecution, trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting audio recordings of two 9......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT