The People, Appellant-Respondent,v.Hazel E. Gordon, Respondent-Appellant.

Brief

N.Y.April 30, 2014

To Be Argued By: Time Requested: STEVEN M. SHARP TEN (10) minutes COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK _______________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant-Respondent, - against - HAZEL GORDON Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. _______________ RESPONDING-REPLY BRIEF P. DAVID SOARES ALBANY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT-RESPONDENT ALBANY COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER 6 LODGE STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK 12207 TEL. (518) 487-5460 DATE COMPLETED: DECEMBER 9, 2013 STEVEN M. SHARP Of Counsel i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 3 I. THE PEOPLE PROVED DEFENDANT’S GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT ................................................................................................... 3 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 5 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375 [1980] ........................................................................................................ 4 People v Bueno, 18 NY3d 160 [2011] ........................................................................................................ 4 People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007] .......................................................................................................... 3 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT By permission of the Honorable Judge Eugene F. Pigott, Jr., Associate Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, granted April 11, 2013, the People of the State of New York appeal from an order of the Appellate Division, Third Department, entered December 6, 2012, which modified a judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Albany County (Lamont, J.), rendered April 23, 2010, convicting her of Robbery in the First Degree (Penal Law § 160.15[3]) and two counts of Robbery in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 160.10[1], [2][a]), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of five years (5) in prison and five years (5) of post-release supervision. Defendant is currently incarcerated pursuant to this judgment of conviction. 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS The Statement of Facts in the People’s Brief dated July 18, 2013 is incorporated herein. 3 POINT I THE PEOPLE PROVED DEFENDANT’S GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT Defendant contends that the Third Department appropriately held that the People failed to prove that defendant’s use of force was for the purpose of overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to its retention immediately thereafter solely because defendant and her accomplices were not found in possession of the stolen property (Defendant’s Brief at 17). This Court should reverse, holding that the lack of possession of stolen property, upon capture, does not render the evidence underlying the purpose of a defendant’s use of force legally insufficient as a matter of law. Defendant also contends, however, that the Third Department erred in finding that legally sufficient evidence established her guilt on the counts of assault in the second degree and petit larceny (Defendant’s Brief at 26, 28). This Court should affirm those convictions as legally sufficient evidence supports each conviction. A verdict will be upheld as legally sufficient “when, viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the People, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt” (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007][internal citations omitted]). A sufficiency inquiry requires a court “to marshal the competent facts most favorable to the People and determine whether, as a matter of law, a jury could logically conclude that the People sustained their burden of proof” (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349). A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when “with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person . . . by means of a 4 deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law § 120.05[2]). Defendant seemingly concedes that Pappas suffered from a physical injury and a vehicle constitutes a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. Rather, defendant argues that the People failed to prove her intent to cause such injury by legally sufficient evidence (Defendant’s Brief at 30). Against that backdrop, the element of intent is an issue for the jury to resolve and “[w]here competing inferences may be drawn concerning a defendant’s intent, those inferences, ‘if not unreasonable, are within the exclusive domain of the finders of fact’” (see People v Bueno, 18 NY3d 160, 169 [2011] quoting People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 381 [1980]). Where the inferences are reasonable, they are “not to be disturbed” by appellate courts (see Bueno, 18 NY3d at 169). Here, multiple witnesses testified that defendant deliberately swerved her car, causing the vehicle to strike Pappas. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the jury could have rationally concluded that defendant intended to cause physical injury to Pappas when she struck him with her car. As explained fully in the People’s initial brief, the evidence adduced at trial establishes that defendant committed the crimes of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree. Thus, legally sufficient evidence also supports the petit larceny conviction. 5 CONCLUSION FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS, THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD BE REVERSED, AND THE CASE REMANDED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE REMAINING ISSUES OF DEFENDANT’S APPEAL. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, P. DAVID SOARES ALBANY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ALBANY COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER 6 LODGE STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK 12207 TEL. (518) 487-5460 Dated: December 9, 2013 By:_______________________ STEVEN M. SHARP Of Counsel