People v. Butts

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Jalil A. Butts's convictions for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the second degree arising from a shooting. The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence under an accomplice-liability theory, and that accomplice testimony was adequately corroborated. The court also upheld the denial of a missing-witness charge and rejected the defendant's remaining claims as unpreserved, meritless, or insufficient to warrant relief.

Holdings

1. A defendant may be convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree as an accomplice even without direct proof that the defendant possessed or controlled the weapon or was the shooter, so long as the defendant knew the principal possessed the weapon, shared the mental state required for the offense, intentionally aided the conduct, and shared a community of purpose with the principal.
2. The evidence was legally sufficient to establish that defendant, acting as an accomplice, shared the intent to cause physical injury by means of a deadly weapon and intentionally aided the assault.
3. Witness 1's accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated under CPL 60.22 because witness 2's testimony and the surveillance video tended to connect defendant with the commission of the crimes.
4. The convictions were not against the weight of the evidence.
5. County Court properly denied defendant's request for a missing witness charge concerning Revis because defendant failed to show that Revis's testimony would be favorable to the People.
6. County Court was not required to hold a Wade hearing concerning witness 1's photo-array identification because the witness was sufficiently familiar with defendant that there was little or no risk of police suggestion causing misidentification.
7. A circumstantial-evidence charge was not required because the People's case rested on both direct and circumstantial evidence; defendant's related ineffective-assistance claim therefore lacked merit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant's convictions for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the second degree under an accomplice-liability theory.
2. Whether the convictions were against the weight of the evidence.
3. Whether the testimony of an accomplice was sufficiently corroborated under CPL 60.22.
4. Whether County Court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge concerning Revis.
5. Whether County Court was required to hold a Wade hearing concerning witness 1's identification of defendant.
6. Whether a circumstantial-evidence charge was required.
7. Whether defendant's sentence was unduly harsh or severe.

Disposition

affirmed