People v. Truitt

213 A.D.3d 1145

184 N.Y.S.3d 441

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Gabriel N. TRUITT, Appellant.

112562

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

Calendar Date: January 12, 2023

Decided and Entered: February 23, 2023

The Kindlon Law Firm, PLLC, Albany (Lee C. Kindlon of counsel), for appellant.

John M. Muehl, District Attorney, Cooperstown, for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Pritzker and McShan, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

McShan, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Brian D. Burns, J.), rendered July 17, 2020, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of arson in the first degree, murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree (two counts).

Following a fire at a multi-family residence in the City of Oneonta, Otsego County in the early morning hours of December 29, 2018 that resulted in the death of a resident (hereinafter the victim), defendant was indicted on charges of arson in the first degree (count 1), murder in the first degree (count 2) and two counts of murder in the second degree (counts 3 and 4). At the conclusion of his ensuing jury trial, defendant was found guilty of all four counts. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole on count 2, and concurrent prison terms of 25 years to life on each of the other counts. Defendant appeals.

Turning first to defendant's contention that his convictions are not supported by legally sufficient evidence and are against the weight of the evidence, defendant correctly concedes that his legal sufficiency argument is unpreserved owing to his failure to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of his case (see People v. Abreu, 195 A.D.3d 1152, 1153, 150 N.Y.S.3d 146 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1144, 159 N.Y.S.3d 322, 348, 180 N.E.3d 486, 512 [2021]; People v. Young, 190 A.D.3d 1087, 1089, 139 N.Y.S.3d 718 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1102, 144 N.Y.S.3d 138, 153, 167 N.E.3d 1273, 1288 [2021]). "Nevertheless, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes" ( People v. Smith, 210 A.D.3d 1297, 1297, 179 N.Y.S.3d 368 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). In undertaking such review, we must first determine whether a contrary result would not be unreasonable, as is the case here, before then "weigh[ing] the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" ( People v. Myers, 163 A.D.3d 1152, 1153, 80 N.Y.S.3d 727 [3d Dept. 2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1066, 89 N.Y.S.3d 121, 113 N.E.3d 955 [2018] ; see People v. Green, 208 A.D.3d 1539, 1540–1541, 175 N.Y.S.3d 355 [3d Dept. 2022] ). In doing so, we "view [the] evidence in a neutral light while giving deference to the credibility determinations made by the trier of fact" ( People v. Lekovic, 200 A.D.3d 1501, 1502, 161 N.Y.S.3d 412 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1008, 168 N.Y.S.3d 360, 188 N.E.3d 552 [2022] ). Notably, "we do not distinguish between direct or circumstantial evidence in conducting a legal sufficiency and/or weight of the evidence review" ( People v. Terry, 196 A.D.3d 840, 841, 149 N.Y.S.3d 705 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1030, 153 N.Y.S.3d 432, 175 N.E.3d 457 [2021] ; accord People v. Rivera, 212 A.D.3d 942, ––––, 181 N.Y.S.3d 387, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 00129, *2 [3d Dept. 2023] ).

In disputing the propriety of his convictions, defendant primarily contends that the People's case was entirely circumstantial and that there was no credible evidence put forth that established his identity as the perpetrator. Further, defendant contends that the People failed to demonstrate that he harbored any motivation to commit the charged offenses or that he acted with the intent necessary to establish his guilt. The trial evidence established that the fire originated outside of the second-floor apartment of defendant's former paramour (hereinafter the paramour). The apartment was one of five in the building, and the paramour testified that defendant had been to her apartment on several occasions prior to the fire. According to various accounts, the paramour and defendant had a tumultuous relationship; in this regard, the paramour herself testified that their relationship was "rocky," describing defendant as "possessive and controlling." According to the paramour, she had made plans to spend time with defendant the evening of December 28, 2019; however, those plans fell through and the paramour ended up making alternate plans to go to a local bar with another individual. When she and that individual arrived at the bar, they encountered defendant outside. Defendant later approached the individual she arrived with and, after that initial interaction between the two proved uneventful, defendant and the individual were later involved in a fight in a nearby parking garage that resulted in defendant's arrest. The arresting officer who observed defendant that evening described his demeanor as "angry" and "belligerent." Defendant was eventually bailed out by his brother around 3:40 a.m.

The People presented surveillance footage from Tru Cuts, a barber shop owned by the brother, which showed defendant entering the establishment shortly after 4:00 a.m. The footage from Tru Cuts showed defendant immediately approaching a cabinet, removing two bottles and then exiting the shop. The footage also showed that the brother and another unidentified individual had followed defendant into Tru Cuts and briefly remained after he left. Shortly thereafter, footage obtained from Center Street Deli, a convenience store located a few blocks away from Tru Cuts, showed an individual walking briskly shortly before 4:10 a.m., travelling from the direction of Tru Cuts toward the location of the paramour's residence. The paramour identified defendant as the individual in the Center Street Deli surveillance footage based, in part, upon the camouflage pants and hooded sweatshirt he was wearing when she saw him that evening, which was consistent with the account of the officer who had arrested defendant earlier that evening and the surveillance footage from Tru Cuts depicting him in that outfit. Meanwhile, the brother testified at trial that, after defendant left Tru Cuts, the brother briefly remained at the shop before eventually leaving for the paramour's residence at around 4:11 a.m. – which was confirmed by the surveillance footage from Tru Cuts. When the brother arrived, he saw that the paramour's residence was on fire and, after initially running into the home, he left the area and proceeded to a nearby gas station where he borrowed a phone to call 911. The surveillance footage from Center Street Deli shows the individual that was previously identified as defendant returning from the direction of the paramour's residence toward Tru Cuts shortly after 4:20 a.m. The surveillance footage from Tru Cuts then shows that defendant returned to the shop at around 4:26 a.m.; he later called for a cab and left for a motel. In connection with this evidence, the People presented evidence from several law enforcement members who conducted walks from various routes to and from the address of the fire and Tru Cuts, including from the Center Street Deli, and testified as to the time frame it took them to traverse those routes.

According to the testimony at trial, the first 911 call reporting the fire was received around 4:21 a.m. Responding firefighters testified that they entered the building and ultimately discovered the victim lying face down in the third-floor apartment and, after he was evacuated from the building, he was later pronounced dead due to smoke inhalation. Various members of law enforcement testified that the fire had been intentionally set and had originated outside of the paramour's apartment on the second floor. Moreover, a fire investigator who had investigated the origin of the fire on behalf of the insurer for the residence testified that the burn pattern indicated that a flammable liquid was splashed outside and underneath the door of the apartment. The investigator procured wood samples from inside the doorway of the apartment which indicated the presence of isopropyl alcohol, a flammable liquid. A search of Tru Cuts revealed that defendant's cabinet contained a bottle of a specific brand of 91% isopropyl alcohol, and the paramour confirmed that she had purchased that same product for defendant on prior occasions.

After the fire, law enforcement interviewed both defendant and the brother, and initially arrested the brother after he admitted to leaving the barber shop and going to the paramour's house the morning of the fire. According to the brother's trial testimony, the reason he went to the paramour's house was to see if he could locate defendant's car keys or phone, which defendant had lost during the earlier altercation. Further, other witnesses had reported seeing the brother shortly after the fire and noted that he had smelled like smoke and ash, and investigators later learned that the brother went to a nearby gas station and reported the fire shortly after it had begun. However, a detective investigating the case testified that, while he was incarcerated, the brother had revealed that he knew defendant had left Tru Cuts and that he was concerned defendant had done so to hurt the paramour. Law enforcement later discovered the Center Street Deli surveillance video showing defendant walking towards the paramour's residence from Tru Cuts shortly before the time that the fire was started. Accordingly, law enforcement released the brother and shifted the focus of their investigation to defendant.

While the jury could have reasonably reached a different verdict had they rejected the...