People v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 09 August 2018
• Docket Number: 107516,107517
• Citation: 83 N.Y.S.3d 705,164 A.D.3d 1012
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Casey WILSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

164 A.D.3d 1012

83 N.Y.S.3d 705

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Casey WILSON, Appellant.

107516

107517

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

Calendar Date: June 1, 2018

Decided and Entered: August 9, 2018

Catherine A. Barber, Guilderland, for appellant.

Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Susan Rider–Ulacco of counsel), for respondent.

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Clark, J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered November 3, 2014, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the first degree (two counts), rape in the first degree (two counts), criminal sexual act in the first degree (two counts), aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree (two counts) and robbery in the first degree, and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered December 1, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant was charged in a 10–count indictment with various offenses arising out of a series of masked burglaries committed on June 15, 2011, September 29, 2013 and November 26, 2013. Following arraignment, defendant successfully moved to, among other things, sever count 8 of the indictment, which charged him with burglary in the second degree and was the sole charge arising out of the November 2013 incident (see CPL 200.20[3] ). The matter thereafter proceeded to a jury trial on the remaining nine counts of the indictment, which arose out of the June 2011 and September 2013 incidents. Defendant was ultimately convicted of all nine counts—specifically, two counts of burglary in the first degree, two counts of rape in the first degree, two counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree, two counts of aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree and one count of robbery in the first degree. County Court subsequently sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 25 years, followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision.¹ Immediately following sentencing, defendant pleaded guilty to the severed charge—burglary in the second degree—and he was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision, to be served concurrently with the sentences for the other convictions. Defendant now appeals from both judgments of conviction.

Initially, we find no merit to defendant's contention that his convictions are not supported by legally sufficient evidence and are against the weight of the evidence. In reviewing a legal sufficiency claim, "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate whether ‘there is 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. Robinson , 156 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 67 N.Y.S.3d 709 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1119, 77 N.Y.S.3d 344, 101 N.E.3d 985 [2018], quoting People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). In contrast, a weight of the evidence analysis requires us to first determine, based on all of the credible evidence, whether a different result 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 (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ; People v. Perry, 154 A.D.3d 1168, 1169, 63 N.Y.S.3d 570 [2017] ).

Turning first to the June 2011 incident, the 2011 victim testified that, on the morning in question, she awoke around 5:00 a.m. to a tall man—dressed in dark clothes and wearing a bandana over the bottom half of his face—standing in her bedroom doorway with a knife. She stated that, as she began to scream, the individual charged and climbed on top of her, covered her face with a pillow and threatened to kill her if she looked at him. According to the 2011 victim, the individual then asked whether she had any money or marihuana in the apartment, to which she replied that she did not. She testified that the individual thereafter instructed her to roll over onto her stomach and, after putting on what she believed to be a condom and rubbing a sticky substance on her vaginal area, raped her. She stated that when he was finished, he threatened to come back and kill her if she disclosed the assault. The 2011 victim asserted that her assailant's eyes looked "familiar" and that she knew her assailant to be defendant as soon as she heard his voice, which she described as "high-pitched." She also stated that her attacker, like defendant, was tall, skinny, not white or black, but of "mixed race," and had long, skinny fingers. She explained that she knew defendant through her boyfriend, with whom she lived, that defendant had been a frequent visitor to her home and that she was therefore familiar with his appearance, voice and manner of speaking. The 2011 victim additionally stated that defendant had previously smoked marihuana in her apartment and that she had seen defendant wear a bandana over his face in a fashion similar to the attacker.

The subsequent police investigation revealed that the attackerhad gained entry into the home through a kitchen window, but that no fingerprint evidence could be recovered from the window. The boyfriend testified that defendant had been at the apartment the evening before the attack until roughly midnight, when defendant left to meet up with a romantic interest. The boyfriend also testified that he received a call from an unknown number on the morning of the attack and that he later asked defendant if he had called from the unknown number. According to the boyfriend, defendant responded that he had called, that he had been "in the wrong place at the wrong time" and that he had been mixed up in a different home burglary, allegedly at a different house on the 2011 victim's street. Although a sex offense evidence kit was obtained from the 2011 victim, analysis of the collected evidence indicated only the presence of DNA from the 2011 victim. Defendant, who testified on his own behalf, denied assaulting the 2011 victim.

In our view, the foregoing evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, provided a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational juror could conclude that defendant committed burglary in the first degree by knowingly entering the 2011 victim's home with the intent to commit a crime therein and threatening her with a knife (see Penal Law § 140.30[3] ; People v. Ramos, 129 A.D.3d 1205, 1206, 10 N.Y.S.3d 736 [2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 971, 18 N.Y.S.3d 607, 40 N.E.3d 585 [2015] ; People v. Woodrow, 91 A.D.3d 1188, 1189–1190, 936 N.Y.S.2d 778 [2012], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 999, 945 N.Y.S.2d 654, 968 N.E.2d 1010 [2012] ), as well as rape in the first degree by using forcible compulsion to engage in sexual intercourse with the 2011 victim (see Penal Law §§ 130.00[8] ; 130.35). Accordingly, with respect to the June 2011 incident, we find that defendant's convictions on the charges of burglary in the first degree and rape in the first degree are supported by legally sufficient evidence. As to defendant's weight of the evidence challenge, we find that it would not have been unreasonable for the jury to have acquitted defendant of the charges arising out of the June 2011 incident, given defendant's denial of the charges and the absence of fingerprint or DNA evidence. However, viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according deference to the jury's credibility assessments (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 [2004], cert denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828 [2004] ), we find defendant's convictions to be supported by the weight of the credible evidence (see People v. Glass, 150 A.D.3d 1408, 1409–1410, 55 N.Y.S.3d 469 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1115, 77 N.Y.S.3d 340, 101 N.E.3d 981 [2018] ; People v. Ramos, 129 A.D.3d at 1206–1207, 10 N.Y.S.3d 736 ; People v. Woodrow, 91 A.D.3d at 1189–1190, 936 N.Y.S.2d 778 ).

We reach a similar conclusion with respect to the charges arising out of the September 2013 incident. The 2013 victim testified that defendant came to her home around 5:00 a.m. on the day in question to meet his girlfriend, who had been at her apartment for a few hours. The 2013 victim stated that, although she did not see defendant, she heard his voice and was informed by defendant's girlfriend that it was defendant at the door. The 2013 victim testified that she fell asleep on the couch while defendant and his girlfriend spoke outside and that she was awoken around 7:00 a.m. by someone pushing her face into the couch. She asserted that this individual then put a knife to her face with a gloved hand and threatened to stab her if she did not remain quiet. According to the 2013 victim, the masked individual blindfolded her and brought her upstairs to her bedroom in a manner that led her to believe that he was familiar with the layout of her home. She stated that, once they were upstairs, the individual forced her to perform oral sex on him and vaginally and anally raped her. The 2013 victim testified that, before any sexual contact, the individual put on a condom that he retrieved at her direction from her dresser drawer. She stated that the individual brought her downstairs after the assault and, after forcing her to lay on her stomach, inserted an object—which he claimed was a douche—into her vagina and anus, followed by his fingers. According to the 2013 victim, the individual then stole a small amount of cash and...