People v. Fullard

207 A.D.3d 816

170 N.Y.S.3d 721

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Jermaine C. FULLARD, Appellant.

112207

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

Calendar Date: May 24, 2022

Decided and Entered: July 7, 2022

John R. Trice, Elmira, for appellant.

Mary E. Saitta, Special Prosecutor, Binghamton, for respondent.

Before: Lynch, J.P., Clark, Pritzker, Ceresia and McShan, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Ceresia, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley Jr., J.), rendered August 2, 2019, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

In February 2018, defendant was questioned by the Endicott Police Department in relation to a sexual assault complaint and was thereafter arrested. During the booking process, defendant became combative and physical with police officers. Defendant was eventually charged by indictment with sexual abuse in the first degree, rape in the third degree and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree. Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (see Penal Law § 195.05 ) and acquitted of the remaining charges related to the alleged sexual assault. County Court sentenced defendant to a three-year term of probation and four months of "working weekends." Defendant appeals.

Defendant first asserts that his conviction is not supported by the weight of the evidence as there was no proof that he intended to obstruct the booking process. "In determining whether defendant's conviction[ ][is] against the weight of the evidence, we first must determine whether a different result would have been unreasonable; if not, we then weigh conflicting testimony, reviewing any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the Court then decides whether the [fact finder] was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" ( People v. Jasiewicz, 162 A.D.3d 1398, 1399, 79 N.Y.S.3d 755 [2018] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1005, 86 N.Y.S.3d 763, 111 N.E.3d 1119 [2018] ; see People v. Baltes, 75 A.D.3d 656, 658, 904 N.Y.S.2d 554 [2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 918, 913 N.Y.S.2d 645, 939 N.E.2d 811 [2010] ; People v. Hodge, 290 A.D.2d 582, 583, 735 N.Y.S.2d 261 [2002], lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 755, 742 N.Y.S.2d 615, 769 N.E.2d 361 [2002] ). As relevant here, "[a] person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he [or she] intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act" ( Penal Law § 195.05 ; accord People v. Jasiewicz, 162 A.D.3d at 1399–1400, 79 N.Y.S.3d 755 ). A conviction of this crime can be supported by a "refusal to comply with orders and continued physical resistance" ( People v. Hodge, 290 A.D.2d at 584, 735 N.Y.S.2d 261 ; see People v. Nieves–Cruz, 200 A.D.3d 1588, 1590, 158 N.Y.S.3d 501 [2021] ).

A detective testified that defendant went voluntarily to the police station for questioning regarding a sexual assault complaint that had been received and, following questioning, was arrested. While being booked, defendant became combative and "irate" when denied access to his vape. Defendant "took a squared off stan[ce]" with "clenched ... fists" and told the detective that "[he] was going to have to beat [defendant] down" to get defendant to cooperate with booking. Defendant calmed momentarily but, upon the arrival of additional officers, became combative once again and lunged at the detective. A taser was utilized and defendant was physically restrained by the detective and two other officers. As a result of defendant's actions, the detective was unable to complete the booking process and defendant was ultimately brought to another area of the station where the process was later completed by other officers.

As "defendant's intent may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, including h[is] words or conduct" – namely, telling the investigator that he would not cooperate with booking and becoming physical – we are satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that defendant intended to subvert the booking process...