Opinion
1398 KA 12-02100.
12-31-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shaquel WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 1 ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (§ 265.012 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), was legally sufficient to disprove defendant's justification defense (see People v. Jones, 151 A.D.2d 997, 997, 542 N.Y.S.2d 435, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 812, 546 N.Y.S.2d 570, 545 N.E.2d 884), and to establish that he intended to cause serious physical injury when he stabbed the victim in the chest with a knife (see People v. Goley, 113 A.D.3d 1083, 1083, 977 N.Y.S.2d 847; People v. Almonte, 7 A.D.3d 324, 324–325, 776 N.Y.S.2d 554, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 670, 784 N.Y.S.2d 8, 817 N.E.2d 826). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we further conclude that the verdict finding defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Contrary to defendant's contention, the jury did not fail “to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded when it determined that he intended to cause serious physical injury ... and when it rejected his justification defense” (People v. Ford, 114 A.D.3d 1273, 1275, 980 N.Y.S.2d 219, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 962, 988 N.Y.S.2d 569, 11 N.E.3d 719).
Supreme Court properly refused to instruct the jury that it could consider the victim's reputation for violence in determining whether defendant reasonably believed that it was necessary to use deadly physical force. The only evidence concerning the victim's reputation for violence consisted of defendant's hearsay statements to the People's psychiatric expert, and the court properly ruled that such statements were admissible “for the limited purpose of informing the jury of the basis of the expert's opinion and not for the truth of the matters related” (People v. Campbell, 197 A.D.2d 930, 932, 602 N.Y.S.2d 282, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 850, 612 N.Y.S.2d 381, 634 N.E.2d 982). Inasmuch as there was no admissible evidence of the victim's reputation for violence, the court properly denied defendant's charge request.
We reject defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct. We conclude that the one preserved instance of misconduct was not so prejudicial that it warrants reversal (see People v. Jacobson, 60 A.D.3d 1326, 1328, 876 N.Y.S.2d 259, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 916, 884 N.Y.S.2d 697, 912 N.E.2d 1078). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the court erred in admitting in evidence a recording of a jailhouse telephone call between him and his mother (see People v. Bennett, 94 A.D.3d 1570, 1570, 943 N.Y.S.2d 371, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 994, 951 N.Y.S.2d 470, 975 N.E.2d 916), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.156[a] ).
We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in failing to determine whether he should be afforded youthful offender status (see People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to make and state for the record “a determination of whether defendant is a youthful offender” (id. at 503, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457).
It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, decision is reserved, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings.