People v. Young

• Decision Date: 09 January 2019
• Docket Number: Ind.No. 135/14,2015–07828
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael YOUNG, also known as Shannon Thompson, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

168 A.D.3d 771
91 N.Y.S.3d 253

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Michael YOUNG, also known as Shannon Thompson, Appellant.

2015–07828
Ind.No. 135/14

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

Argued - September 6, 2018
January 9, 2019

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Nao Terai of counsel), for appellant.

Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

168 A.D.3d 771

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the defendant's adjudication as a second violent felony offender; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree for strangling the victim in her residence in Staten Island in 2005. Approximately 10 days after the victim's death, the police discovered the victim's body in a barrel behind a building in Brooklyn. The defendant, who was on parole at the time of the offense, failed to appear for his appointment with his parole officer, and fled the country. He was arrested in 2014, after he returned to the United States.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that venue was proper in Richmond County (see People v. Greenberg , 89 N.Y.2d 553, 555–556, 656 N.Y.S.2d 192, 678 N.E.2d 878 ; People v. Ribowsky , 77 N.Y.2d 284, 291–292, 567 N.Y.S.2d 392, 568 N.E.2d 1197 ; People v. Auguste , 151 A.D.3d 734, 734, 56 N.Y.S.3d 343 ).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes , 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), there was legally sufficient evidence to establish the defendant's

168 A.D.3d 772

identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt. That evidence consisted of forensic DNA evidence, coupled

91 N.Y.S.3d 255

with the evidence of the defendant's flight shortly after the homicide (see People v. Drummond , 143 A.D.3d 836, 837, 39 N.Y.S.3d 208 ; People v. Moss , 138 A.D.3d 761, 761, 29 N.Y.S.3d 452 ; People v. Dolan , 2 A.D.3d 745, 746, 768 N.Y.S.2d 654 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo , 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of evidence (see People v. Romero , 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in connection with its Molineux ruling (see People v. Molineux , 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286 ), authorizing the admission of evidence that the defendant, after regularly appearing for his parole appointments, absconded from parole and fled the country subsequent to the crime. That evidence, which was admitted with limiting instructions, demonstrated the defendant's consciousness of guilt (see People v. Babb , 68 A.D.3d 887, 890 N.Y.S.2d 610 ; People v. Dugan , 238 A.D.2d 922, 661 N.Y.S.2d 121 ).

The defendant contends that the admission of certain testimony from a detective that the defendant was identified as a suspect...