People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 20 March 2020
• Docket Number: 147,KA 15–01500
• Citation: 120 N.Y.S.3d 682,181 A.D.3d 1298
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jason R. WILLIAMS, also known as Errol Bowry, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

181 A.D.3d 1298

120 N.Y.S.3d 682

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Jason R. WILLIAMS, also known as Errol Bowry, Defendant–Appellant.

147

KA 15–01500

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

March 20, 2020

MARK D. FUNK, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (CAROLYN WALTHER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CURRAN, TROUTMAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law

§ 140.25 [2] ).Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because the People did not establish that he entered the victim's home with intent to commit a crime therein.We reject that contention (see generallyPeople v. Bleakley,69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672[1987] ).It is well established that "[a]defendant's intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the circumstances of the entry ..., as well as from defendant's actions and assertions when confronted"( People v. Maier,140 A.D.3d 1603, 1603–1604, 34 N.Y.S.3d 544[4th Dept.2016], lv denied28 N.Y.3d 933, 40 N.Y.S.3d 361, 63 N.E.3d 81[2016][internal quotation marks omitted] ).Here, we conclude that there is legally sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer defendant's criminal intent, i.e., the victim testified that she saw defendant, who was on the premises without permission, climbing out of her bedroom window, defendant fled when the victim made noise as she walked toward the bedroom, and a television had been moved across the bedroom and was sitting near the window (see generallyPeople v. Beaty,89 A.D.3d 1414, 1416–1417, 932 N.Y.S.2d 280[4th Dept.2011], affd22 N.Y.3d 918, 977 N.Y.S.2d 172, 999 N.E.2d 535[2013];People v. Pendarvis,143 A.D.3d 1275, 1275, 39 N.Y.S.3d 348[4th Dept.2016], lv denied28 N.Y.3d 1149, 52 N.Y.S.3d 300, 74 N.E.3d 685[2017];People v. Hymes,132 A.D.3d 1411, 1411–1412, 17 N.Y.S.3d 561[4th Dept.2015], lv denied26 N.Y.3d 1146, 32 N.Y.S.3d 60, 51 N.E.3d 571[2016] ).Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (seePeople v. Danielson,9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1[2007] ), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generallyBleakley,69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).

We also reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in its instruction to the jury in response to a jury note requesting a legal definition of the word "enter."The court responded to the note by reading a definition from case law, i.e., that "[t]he entry element of burglary is satisfied ‘when a person intrudes within a [dwelling], no matter how slightly, with any part of his or her body’ "( People v. Sterina,108 A.D.3d 1088, 1090, 968 N.Y.S.2d 296[4th Dept.2013], quotingPeople v. King,61 N.Y.2d 550, 555, 475 N.Y.S.2d 260, 463 N.E.2d 601[1984] ).We conclude that the court"respond[ed] meaningfully to the jury's request"( People v. Malloy,55 N.Y.2d 296, 302, 449 N.Y.S.2d 168, 434 N.E.2d 237[1982], cert denied459 U.S. 847, 103 S.Ct. 104, 74 L.Ed.2d 93[1982] ), and that "the...