From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 18, 1989
153 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

September 18, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.

The defendant's conviction stemmed from the death of Dennis King, who was shot in a Brooklyn laundromat. The evidence adduced at trial established that the defendant had argued with King and had armed himself with a knife with which he intended to stab the decedent. Prior thereto, however, an unapprehended gunman, whose identity was known to the defendant, fired the fatal shots while the defendant and the decedent argued.

It is uncontroverted that the defendant neither possessed the murder weapon nor fired the fatal shots. Thus, to hold him criminally responsible for the conduct of the shooter, the People were obligated to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the mental culpability necessary to commit the crime and, in furtherance thereof, he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal in the commission of the crime (Penal Law § 20.00; see, Matter of John G., 118 A.D.2d 646). In the instant case the People failed to meet this burden.

The People failed to establish that the defendant was acting in concert with the person who shot the deceased. Indeed, the People proffered absolutely no evidence tending to establish that the defendant even knew that the shooter was armed (see, People v. Ortiz, 107 A.D.2d 824; People v. Vasquez, 104 A.D.2d 429). Moreover, even if the defendant was aware of the weapon possessed by the shooter, the People failed to prove that the defendant shared or was aware of the shooter's intent to kill the decedent (see, People v. Summerset, 100 A.D.2d 947; see also, People v Welcome, 127 A.D.2d 717). Notwithstanding the defendant's admitted but uneffectuated intent to stab the decedent, "no intent to [kill] by means of a gun has been shown, and it can be reasonably hypothesized that the defendant [did not intend such] gunfire" (People v. La Coot, 118 A.D.2d 660, 661). Accordingly, in light of the People's failure to establish that the defendant shared the shooter's intent to kill (see, People v. Monaco, 14 N.Y.2d 43), the judgment of conviction must be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions. Mollen, P.J., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 18, 1989
153 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Torres

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICARDO TORRES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 18, 1989

Citations

153 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
545 N.Y.S.2d 398

Citing Cases

People v. Rossey

It is uncontroverted that the defendant neither possessed the murder weapon nor fired the fatal shots.…

People v. Walker

The trial evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that defendant shared a community of purpose with the…