People v. Watson

• Decision Date: 18 July 2019
• Docket Number: 109614
• Citation: 174 A.D.3d 1138,105 N.Y.S.3d 199
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Paul WATSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

174 A.D.3d 1138
105 N.Y.S.3d 199

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Paul WATSON, Appellant.

109614

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

Decided and Entered: July 18, 2019
Calendar Date: May 30, 2019

105 N.Y.S.3d 200

Mark Diamond, Albany, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Vincent Stark of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Clark, J.P., Mulvey, Devine, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Clark, J.P.

174 A.D.3d 1138

105 N.Y.S.3d 201

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, J.), rendered June 1, 2017 in Albany County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree.

Following a street fight that resulted in the victim sustaining injuries consistent with stab wounds, defendant was charged by indictment with attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 15 years for attempted assault in the first degree and a concurrent prison term of seven years for assault in the second degree, followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

174 A.D.3d 1139

We turn first to defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency and the weight of the evidence supporting his convictions. When addressing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, this Court evaluates whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, provides " any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" ( People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] [internal citations omitted]; see People v. Bueno , 18 N.Y.3d 160, 169, 936 N.Y.S.2d 636, 960 N.E.2d 405 [2011] ). In contrast, a weight of the evidence review requires this Court to first determine whether, based on all of the credible evidence, a different finding would have been unreasonable and, if not, "weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence ( People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Marshall , 162 A.D.3d 1110, 1111–1112, 78 N.Y.S.3d 753 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1150, 83 N.Y.S.3d 432, 108 N.E.3d 506 [2018] ).

A conviction for attempted assault in the first degree, as charged in the indictment, requires proof that, "[w]ith intent to cause serious physical injury to another person," the defendant attempted to cause "such injury ... by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument" ( Penal Law § 120.10[1] ; see Penal Law § 110.00 ; People v. Rawlinson , 170 A.D.3d 1425, 1426, 97 N.Y.S.3d 319 [2019] ). As to assault in the second degree, the People were required to prove that, "[w]ith intent to cause physical injury to another person, [the defendant] cause[d] such injury to such person ... by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument" ( Penal Law § 120.05[2] ). " ‘Dangerous instrument’ means any instrument, article or substance ... which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury" ( Penal Law § 10.00[13] ).

The trial testimony established that three law enforcement officers observed

105 N.Y.S.3d 202

defendant and the victim fighting in the street while the officers were on their way to make an arrest unrelated to defendant. Each officer stated that he did not observe defendant with a weapon, but two of the officers testified that defendant was striking the victim with "a straight arm," which was inconsistent with fist punches. The medical evidence, including testimony from a trauma surgeon who treated the victim, established that the victim had sustained several life-threatening

174 A.D.3d 1140

stab wounds to his abdomen and arm from "a slender sharp instrument." More specifically, the medical evidence demonstrated that a large vein in the victim's left arm "had been cut through-and-through" and that, had victim's arm and abdominal injuries not been immediately addressed, he could have died from either blood loss or septic shock caused by gastric contents leaking from his stomach. A weapon was never recovered, despite searches of the area, defendant's person and apartment – to which defendant had retreated after the attack – and a vehicle belonging to defendant's girlfriend. With respect to defendant's identity as the assailant, forensic evidence established that the blood found on the victim's jeans was also found under defendant's fingernails.¹ Furthermore, one of the police officers testified that he had known defendant for more than 20 years and recognized him as the assailant.

Defendant offered a conflicting version of events. Several witnesses, including defendant and defendant's girlfriend, testified that defendant had been attacked by the victim and another male. Defendant denied having a weapon and testified that he was merely defending himself during a fist fight. Notwithstanding defendant's alternate version of events and the fact that a weapon was neither observed nor recovered by the police, we find that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, presented a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational juror could conclude that defendant, with intent to cause serious physical injury, possessed a dangerous weapon with which he repeatedly stabbed the victim (see People v. Gragnano , 63 A.D.3d 1437, 1439–1440, 885 N.Y.S.2d 369 [2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 939, 895 N.Y.S.2d 329, 922 N.E.2d 918 [2010] ; People v. Wade , 274 A.D.2d 438, 439, 710 N.Y.S.2d 626 [2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 939, 721 N.Y.S.2d 616, 744 N.E.2d 152 [2000] ). Further, although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, viewing the record in a neutral light and giving deference to the jury's credibility determinations, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Gill , 168 A.D.3d 1140, 1142, 90 N.Y.S.3d 392 [2019] ; People v. Pine , 126 A.D.3d 1112, 1115–1116, 4 N.Y.S.3d 746 [2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1004, 38 N.Y.S.3d 113, 59 N.E.3d 1225 [2016] ).

Next, defendant asserts that Supreme Court deprived him of a fair trial by allowing one of the police officers to testify that he had known defendant for more than 20 years. In so testifying,

174 A.D.3d 1141

the police officer did not reference any prior criminal activity involving defendant. The officer explained that, when working as a foot patrol officer, he "made it a point to know

...