Policano v. Herbert
Decision Date | 16 November 2006 |
Parties | David POLICANO, Respondent, v. Victor T. HERBERT, Appellant. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Richard Ware Levitt, New York City (Richard Ware Levitt of counsel), for respondent.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has posed three certified questions that call upon us to address New York law regarding depraved indifference murder at the time defendant David Policano's conviction for this crime became final on June 28, 2001, and to answer related questions. We begin by rehearsing the relevant facts and prior proceedings in this case.
On January 21, 1997, Raphaela Robles was standing in front of her apartment building in Brooklyn, talking with defendant. Upon observing them, her boyfriend, Terry Phillips, became "upset," and he and defendant began "[p]ushing, shoving and talking." As Robles fled upstairs to her third-floor apartment, she turned around and saw Phillips with a pipe. After entering her apartment, she looked out the window and saw defendant bleeding.
Detective Alonzo Hobbs, who was investigating the assault, spoke with defendant in the hospital the same day. Defendant's head was bandaged, and he appeared to be "very angry" and "hurt from the pain." Defendant explained to Detective Hobbs that he and Phillips had argued and fought earlier in the day, and that he had knocked Phillips unconscious. Although defendant initially insisted that he would "take care of" this matter himself and did not want police intervention, he subsequently filed a complaint against Phillips with the police.
Shortly before 8:00 P.M. on January 27, 1997, Jimmy Sprye was in his apartment in Brooklyn, a few blocks away from the intersection of Carlton and Myrtle avenues, when he was visited by his friend Neicy Wright and defendant, whom he had not met before that evening. Defendant and Wright arrived with a "dime bag" of crack, which all three of them smoked. Defendant had bathrobes with him, and he and Wright would leave periodically with bathrobes to sell, and then return to pick up more. Twice, defendant left unaccompanied by Wright. On the first of these two occasions, he appeared nervous when he returned, and told Sprye that someone had been shot on Myrtle Avenue.
That same evening, Phillips and his friend Lonny Stagg arrived at the bus stop at the well-lit corner of Carlton and Myrtle avenues at about 8:40 or 8:45 P.M. Phillips stood at the corner, while Stagg stood within the glass bus shelter, five to seven feet away from Phillips, reading the bus schedule. Stagg then noticed defendant, who was about 20 feet away from him. Defendant was wearing a jacket, which was either navy blue or black with white stripes running down the sleeves.
Seconds later, Stagg heard a gunshot and "took off." After advancing 50 feet, he wheeled around and saw Phillips holding his arm over his face as if to shield himself. Stagg heard two additional shots as he resumed his flight. He could not see the shooter's face, which was obscured by a poster in the bus shelter, but he saw the gun in the right hand of someone wearing the same style and color jacket that he had observed on defendant moments earlier. The gun appeared to be three to five feet away from Phillips. When Stagg reached a nearby pizzeria, he yelled for someone to call 911. He then went back outside, and saw the shooter running down Carlton Avenue.
The subsequent autopsy showed that Phillips had been shot twice in the head, once in the neck, and once in the right thigh. According to the medical examiner, the location of the three gunshot wounds to Phillips's head and neck was consistent with those shots having been fired while Phillips was standing upright and turning. The location of the gunshot wound to Phillips's thigh was consistent with that shot having been fired after Phillips had fallen to the ground, with the shooter standing near Phillips's head and aiming toward his feet. The absence of stippling near any of the gunshot wounds showed that they were fired from a distance greater than 12 to 18 inches.
Defendant was indicted for intentional murder (Penal Law § 125.25[1]) and depraved indifference murder (Penal Law § 125.25[2]) as well as criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02[4]). Testifying in his own defense at trial, defendant protested his innocence and presented an alibi.
At the close of the defense case, defendant's attorney moved to dismiss the count of depraved indifference murder on the ground that there was no evidence that defendant had acted recklessly or wantonly. The trial judge denied the motion. After summations, defendant's attorney renewed this objection, and the court adhered to its original decision.
The trial judge submitted one count of depraved indifference murder and one count of intentional murder to the jury, but not the weapons charges. Unusually, he instructed the jurors not to consider the count of intentional murder if they first found defendant guilty of depraved indifference murder. After the jury found defendant guilty of depraved indifference murder, the court sentenced him as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment of 25 years to life.
These arguments carried the day. On November 13, 2000, the Appellate Division affirmed defendant's conviction. "Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution," the Court found "that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v. Policano, 277 A.D.2d 331, 331-332, 715 N.Y.S.2d 880 [2d Dept 2000] [citation omitted]). Exercising its broad factual review power, the Appellate Division further pronounced itself "satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence" (id. at 332, 715 N.Y.S.2d 880).
On March 30, 2001, a Judge of our Court denied defendant's application for leave to appeal (People v. Policano, 96 N.Y.2d 786, 725 N.Y.S.2d 651, 749 N.E.2d 220 [2001]). Defendant's conviction became final 90 days later, on June 28, 2001, when his time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court expired (see Rules Sup Ct rule 13[1]; Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527, 123 S.Ct. 1072, 155 L.Ed.2d 88 [2003]).
Defendant subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in which he asserted that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove his guilt of depraved indifference murder. On March 26, 2004, the District Court Judge heard oral argument at which defendant appeared pro se by telephone. As the Judge explained in his order of the same date:
"In light of Gonzalez," — which, as the Judge noted, we had handed down the day before — he decided to reconsider his position on whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that defendant had acted with depraved indifference. He directed the court's clerk to appoint counsel for defendant, and the parties to brief the issue.
Viewing defendant's case as "largely indistinguishable" from Gonzalez, on September 7, 2004 the District Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that defendant acted recklessly with respect to Phillips's death, and so granted the habeas petition (Policano v. Herbert, 2004 WL 1960203, *9, 2004 U.S. Dist LEXIS 17785, *25 [E.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2004]). The People appealed. Defendant was released from custody following the Second Circuit's denial of a stay pending appeal on December 28, 2004 (Policano v. Herbert, 453 F.3d 75, 78 [2d Cir.200...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Corpus
...felony-murder rule. The District Attorney points to the opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Policano v. Herbert (2006) 7 N.Y.3d 588, 825 N.Y.S.2d 678, 859 N.E.2d 484 (Policano ), in which, she claims, the court considered an analogous situation. In Policano, the court applied an ide......
-
Rivera v. Cuomo
...example, a point blank shooting of a victim in the head—likewise demonstrated depraved indifference.” Policano v. Herbert, 7 N.Y.3d 588, 601, 825 N.Y.S.2d 678, 859 N.E.2d 484 (2006). In 2003, however, in People v. Hafeez, the New York Court of Appeals departed slightly from this earlier und......
-
State v. Robertson
...retroactively only if it falls within one of [the] delineated exceptions." (citation omitted)); Policano v. Herbert , 7 N.Y.3d 588, 825 N.Y.S.2d 678, 859 N.E.2d 484, 495–96 (2006) ("[W]e must weigh three factors to determine whether a new precedent operates retroactively: the purpose to be ......
-
Walker v. Graham
...701, 901 N.E.2d 192 (2008). In Jean–Baptiste, the Court of Appeals distinguished its prior holding in Policano v. Herbert, 7 N.Y.3d 588, 825 N.Y.S.2d 678, 859 N.E.2d 484 (2006), and held that, although intervening changes of law should not be applied to cases on post-conviction collateral r......
-
§ 24.03 Voluntary Intoxication: Mens Rea
..."moral blameworthiness").[35] People v. Register, 457 N.E.2d 704, 709 (N.Y. 1983), overruled on other grounds, Policano v. Herbert, 859 N.E.2d 484 (N.Y. 2006); Director of Public Prosecutions v. Majewski, [1976] 2 All E.R. 142, 150 (Lord Elwyn-Jones, L.C.). [36] E.g., King v. Commonwealth, ......
-
§ 24.03 VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION: MENS REA
...P.2d 385, 396 (Colo. 1982).[35] . People v. Register, 457 N.E.2d 704, 709 (N.Y. 1983), overruled on other grounds, Policano v. Herbert, 859 N.E.2d 484 (n.Y. 2006); Director of Public Prosecutions v. Majewski, [1976] 2 All E.R. 142, 150 (Lord Elwyn-Jones, L.C.).[36] . E.g., King v. Commonwea......