People v. Wright

• Decision Date: 06 April 1995
• Citation: 624 N.Y.S.2d 650,214 A.D.2d 759
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard J. WRIGHT, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 650

624 N.Y.S.2d 650

214 A.D.2d 759

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard J. WRIGHT, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

April 6, 1995.

Kindlon and Shanks P.C. (Terence L. Kindlon, of counsel), Albany, for appellant.

Mary O. Donohue, Dist. Atty. (Bruce E. Knoll, of counsel), Troy, for respondent.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.

PETERS, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Dwyer, Jr., J.), rendered May 25, 1988, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of murder in the second degree (four counts) and arson in the first degree.

In January 1987, defendant was indicted in Rensselaer County on one count of arson in the first degree and four counts of murder in the second degree. The charges arose out of a fire which took place on September 1, 1986 in the City of Troy. Two young girls, who were sleeping in the dwelling at the time of the fire, were killed and Donald Gilbert, who lived in the building, suffered serious burns.

The evidence proffered at trial was based primarily upon the testimony of Martin Williams, to whom defendant had admitted setting the fire. Williams, who had an extensive criminal record and testified in exchange for the dismissal of a number of burglary charges against him, was not an accomplice to the arson. He testified that approximately two weeks after the fire, he and defendant were smoking cocaine together when defendant confessed to the arson and stated that he was trying to get back at Gilbert. Gilbert testified that approximately two weeks prior to the fire, defendant had accused him of stealing his stereo. Defendant's father had filed a police report charging Gilbert with stealing property from them. Additional prosecution evidence consisted of the testimony of an acquaintance of defendant who saw him at the scene of the crime shortly before the fire was discovered. A Police Chief in Troy confirmed that defendant was in the vicinity of the fire after it was discovered. The prosecution further proffered testimony concerning investigations regarding the cause of the fire which indicated that while accelerants were not confirmed, the probable cause of the fire was arson.

Defendant testified on his own behalf and presented testimony of acquaintances and relatives. He contended that he was at his home at the time that the fire began and denied ever making a confession to Williams. Witnesses for the defense attempted to show that Williams had a poor reputation for veracity and had previously admitted to them that he would "never go back to jail again and if he had to, he would throw any friend he had in, to get out of trouble".

The jury ultimately returned a verdict finding defendant guilty of all crimes charged and defendant was thereafter sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 25 years to life. On this appeal, defendant contends that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, and that his sentence is harsh and excessive. We disagree.

Mindful that where, as here, the case against a defendant is based largely upon the testimony of a third party concerning an admission or confession made by the defendant, CPL 60.50 mandates that the testimony be corroborated. The Court of Appeals has made it clear that there need only be evidence apart from the defendant's confession or admission establishing the fact that the offense has been committed (People v. Lipsky, 57 N.Y.2d 560, 571, 457 N.Y.S.2d 451, 443 N.E.2d 925). We reject defendant's assertion that the strict corroboration requirements applicable to accomplice testimony are relevant here since Williams was not acting as an accomplice (see, People v. Ford, 174 A.D.2d 853, 571 N.Y.S.2d 146, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 955, 573 N.Y.S.2d 650, 578 N.E.2d 448). Hence, "[e]vidence in addition to the confession is * * * sufficient 'even though it fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt' " (People v. Lipsky, supra, at 571, 457 N.Y.S.2d 451, 443 N.E.2d 925, quoting People v. Cuozzo, 292 N.Y. 85, 92, 54 N.E.2d 20; see, People v. Fiacco, 132 A.D.2d 887, 888-889, 518 N.Y.S.2d 231, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 874, 523 N.Y.S.2d 501, 518 N.E.2d 12).

Here, in addition to defendant's confession and evidence of the fire and the deaths of two individuals, the evidence further established defendant's presence at the scene and a motive. Thus, we conclude that there was a valid line of reasoning which could lead the jury to the conclusion it reached, that of guilty, on the basis of the trial evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find no merit to defendant's claim that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction (see, People v. Jackson, 65 N.Y.2d 265, 491 N.Y.S.2d 138, 480 N.E.2d 727; People v. Pierce, 150 A.D.2d 948, 541 N.Y.S.2d 866, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 817, 546 N.Y.S.2d 575, 545...