People v. Woodard

• Decision Date: 12 November 2021
• Docket Number: 860,KA 17-00339
• Citation: 199 A.D.3d 1377,156 N.Y.S.3d 631
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Derrick WOODARD, also Known as "Wood," Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

199 A.D.3d 1377
156 N.Y.S.3d 631

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Derrick WOODARD, also Known as "Wood," Defendant-Appellant.

860
KA 17-00339

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

Entered: November 12, 2021

MARK D. FUNK, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KATHLEEN P. REARDON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JAMES F. GIBBONS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In this prosecution arising from an investigation into a multi-level drug sales operation, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a joint jury trial with three codefendants, of conspiracy in the second degree ( Penal Law § 105.15 ), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). We reject

156 N.Y.S.3d 633

defendant's challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. "It is well settled that, even in circumstantial evidence cases, the standard for appellate review of legal sufficiency issues is whether any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the [jury] on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People" ( People v. Hines , 97 N.Y.2d 56, 62, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329 [2001], rearg denied 97 N.Y.2d 678, 738 N.Y.S.2d 292, 764 N.E.2d 396 [2001] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction on the counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see People v. Samuels , 99 N.Y.2d 20, 24, 750 N.Y.S.2d 828, 780 N.E.2d 513 [2002] ; People v. White , 103 A.D.3d 1213, 1213, 959 N.Y.S.2d 350 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1011, 971 N.Y.S.2d 263, 993 N.E.2d 1287 [2013] ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the conviction on the count of conspiracy in the second degree is supported by legally sufficient evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the People's case was based largely on circumstantial proof (see People v. Portis , 129 A.D.3d 1300, 1301-1302, 12 N.Y.S.3d 328 [3d Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1091, 23 N.Y.S.3d 648, 44 N.E.3d 946 [2015] ; People v. Rivera , 128 A.D.3d 473, 473, 9 N.Y.S.3d 218 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1005, 38 N.Y.S.3d 114, 59 N.E.3d 1226 [2016] ).

We also reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Even assuming, arguendo, that a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we conclude that, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see Portis , 129 A.D.3d at 1302, 12 N.Y.S.3d 328 ; see generally Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).

Defendant next contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his request to provide the jury with a multiple conspiracies charge. We reject that contention. A multiple conspiracies charge "recogniz[es] the possibility of multiple conspiracies and direct[s] an acquittal in the event that the jury concludes that something other than a single integrated conspiracy was proven" ( People v. Leisner , 73 N.Y.2d 140, 150, 538 N.Y.S.2d 517, 535 N.E.2d 647 [1989] ). "Although a multiple conspiracies charge must be given ‘when the facts are such that a jury might reasonably find either a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies’ ..., it is well established that ‘[p]roof of a defendant's knowledge of the identities and specific acts of all his coconspirators is not necessary where[, as here,] the circumstantial evidence establishes the defendant's knowledge that he is part of a criminal venture which...