People v. Harris

2022 NY Slip Op 03548

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stephan Harris, Also Known as Semmi, Appellant.

No. 112407

Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

June 2, 2022

Calendar Date: April 25, 2022

Tina Sodhi, Alternate Public Defender, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), for appellant.

P David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Vincent Stark of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Fisher, JJ.

Fisher, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDonough, J.) rendered August 6, 2018 in Albany County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

In June 2017, defendant was charged by indictment with murder in the second degree based on allegations that he intentionally stabbed the victim with a knife, causing the victim's death. Following a jury trial, at which defendant pursued a justification defense, defendant was acquitted of murder in the second degree and found guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree. He was subsequently sentenced to a prison term of 25 years with 5 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Initially, defendant contends that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is against the weight of the evidence. We disagree. "In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" (People v Warner, 194 A.D.3d 1098, 1099 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1030 [2021]; see People v Agudio, 194 A.D.3d 1270, 1271 [2021]). "In contrast, when undertaking a weight of the evidence review, this Court must first determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable and then weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" (People v Sweet, 200 A.D.3d 1315, 1316 [2021] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 930 [2022]; see People v Lyons, 200 A.D.3d 1222, 1225-1226 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1162 [2022]). Although this Court must "review the evidence in a neutral light in making that assessment, we also accord great deference to the jury's credibility determinations, given that the jurors have the opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor" (People v Hodgins, 202 A.D.3d 1377, 1379 [2022] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v Walker, 191 A.D.3d 1154, 1156 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 961 [2021]).

As relevant here, "[a] person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when[, ]... [w]ith intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he [or she] causes the death of such person" (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). "[W]here a defendant advances a justification defense, the People are obliged to 'demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that [he or she] did not believe deadly force was necessary or that a reasonable person in the same situation would not have perceived that deadly force was necessary'" (People v Hodgins, 202 A.D.3d at 1379, quoting People v Umali, 10 N.Y.3d 417, 425 [2008], cert denied 556 U.S. 1110 [2009]; see Penal Law § 35.15 [1], [2]; People v Harris, 186 A.D.3d 907, 909 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1120 [2021]). However, the use of "deadly physical force is not justified if the person knows he or she can avoid the use of force by retreating with complete safety. [Penal Law § 35.15] contains only one exception: there is no duty to retreat if a person is 'in his [or her] dwelling and not the initial aggressor'" (People v Hernandez, 98 N.Y.2d 175, 180 [2002], quoting Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a] [i]; see People v Ramirez, 118 A.D.3d 1108, 1112 [2014]; People v Curry, 85 A.D.3d 1209, 1212 [2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 815 [2011]).

Turning to our evidentiary review, several key facts were undisputed. First, the victim and a group of people, primarily his family or friends, were drinking alcohol, smoking marihuana and gambling over a dice game in a relative's garage. Later in the evening, defendant joined in on the dice game and had already been, and continued, drinking alcohol. Second, at some point the victim and defendant had a disagreement over a bet, wherein tensions escalated and the victim's friends forced defendant out of the garage. Finally, the victim followed defendant out of the garage and into the street, wherein the victim punched defendant twice in the face before the victim was stabbed twice and defendant ran away. The factual dispute at trial revolved around what transpired during the confrontation before defendant started to run away and whether defendant acted in self-defense when he stabbed the victim.

In that regard, the People presented the testimony of one of the victim's cousins, who testified that he observed the victim and defendant engage in a physical struggle along a truck parked in the street. The cousin testified that he saw the victim punch defendant in the face twice and then backed up to the other side of the street to catch his footing. Then, according to the cousin, defendant charged at the victim and stabbed the victim in his left shoulder. Upon being stabbed by defendant, the cousin heard the victim say, "you going to stab me, Bro? You going to stab me, really?" The cousin testified that he saw the victim grab his stab wound on his left shoulder when defendant stabbed the victim again, this time in the stomach. The cousin testified that after defendant stabbed the victim a second time, defendant started to run down the street, which is when the cousin heard a gunshot. The cousin admitted that, originally, he was not truthful with detectives about what he saw because he "was hoping that [the victim] would make it through and let him deal with this" - to let the victim decide "[w]hether he wanted to testify or whatever, keep it to the streets." The cousin further testified that, after he learned that the victim had died, he went to the police station to tell law enforcement what really happened.

The People also presented testimony from a bystander who returned home around the time that a group of people came out of the garage across the street from her residence. This individual testified that she had parked her car and was talking to her friend when she observed two people fighting in the street. She recognized the victim as one of the men fighting because she had known him since kindergarten. She explained that she saw defendant stab the victim and, once she saw the victim "going down," defendant started running away. She further testified that she "was right there" - approximately 10 to 15 feet from where the stabbing took place. The bystander identified defendant in court as the person who stabbed the victim because she had "[s]een him around." She clarified that she did not see the knife until after the incident, but indicated that she saw the victim beating up defendant "and then [she saw] a knife and then [the victim] walked to the street and went down." The bystander confirmed that she never saw anything in the victim's hands during the altercation, but she did see defendant with a knife.

Additionally, the People presented several other fact witnesses, including law enforcement officers and first responders. This included testimony from the first police officer to arrive on the scene, a detective sergeant with the Albany Police Department, who testified that when he walked over toward the garage, he saw a male in the "fetal position with his hands around his abdomen area." He further testified that the victim had "a traumatic injury, some kind of stab wound to the point where he was eviscerated and his intestines... were hanging out of his stomach wall and into his hands." The severity of the victim's injuries was confirmed by a firefighter/paramedic who rendered care to the victim. Another detective with the Albany Police Department testified that, at the time of the incident, he was working as a member of the forensic investigation unit that processed the scene of the incident. He explained that, in the area where defendant had run through, someone found a knife beside a tree that was buried under plant matter and an egg carton.

For his part, defendant testified that he knew the victim for over 10 years and indicated that the victim had "a reputation for violence in the community." Defendant explained that the victim's reputation was based upon him being violent while he was drinking, and that it was further known that the victim would carry knives with him. Defendant testified that he knew the victim was carrying a knife the night of the incident because the victim used it to open a cigar earlier that night. Defendant denied carrying a knife.

Defendant explained that, when tensions started to escalate between him and the victim, he was the banker of the dice game and that the others in the garage were losing their money to him and becoming mad at him. Defendant testified that he felt threatened, particularly when other people started to get involved in the gambling dispute because they were all on the victim's side. Defendant testified that he was then "dragged out" of the garage by the victim's friends, who were shouting to the victim to "f***...