| People v Doyle |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01651 [48 AD3d 961] |
| February 28, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn M.Doyle, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kevin C. Kortright, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Katherine G. Henley of counsel), forrespondent.
Carpinello, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Berke,J.), rendered March 3, 2006, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of murder in thesecond degree.
On July 24, 2005, a large truck chest was discovered floating in the Champlain Canal nearLock 9 in Washington County. The chest was locked and a mordant odor was emanating from it.It was thereafter revealed that the chest, which had been weighed down with sand tubes,contained the body of defendant's former girlfriend, who had been missing from the MadisonCounty area for over 10 weeks. The victim's mouth had been gagged with a bandana and ducttaped shut while her hands and feet had been bound with handcuffs and duct tape. Her body hadbeen wrapped in a comforter from her bed. An autopsy revealed that she died from asphyxia dueto suffocation.
This gruesome discovery was made a short distance from defendant's Washington Countyhome. Indeed, he was the last person to have seen the victim alive on May 4, 2005 after travelingto Central New York to help her move. Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty ofmurder in the second degree and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. He now appeals.[*2]
Defendant argues that the evidence was legallyinsufficient to support his conviction and also that the verdict was against the weight of theevidence. The first contention has not been properly preserved for review by a specific motion todismiss at the close of the People's proof (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). Inany event, reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted. Moreover, upon the exercise of ourfactual review power (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]), we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
It was established at trial that the relationship between defendant and the victim had been arocky one filled with incidents of jealous and controlling behavior on defendant's part. Althoughthey had broken up several weeks earlier, defendant agreed to travel to Central New York onApril 29, 2005 to help her move. On his last night in town, defendant was observed sitting alonein the bar where the victim was working as a bartender. At closing time (i.e., in the early morninghours of May 4, 2005), the victim, in the presence of defendant, left the bar with a male patronwith whom she had been recently dating. She dropped this man off at his home and he never sawor heard from her again. It is undisputed that defendant was with the victim for several hourslater that same day before she was scheduled to go out of town to meet another man who hadagreed to give her baseball tickets. She never showed up for that meeting.
In addition to being the last person to see the victim alive, defendant purchased the truckchest in which her body was found at an auto parts store near his home less than one week beforeher disappearance.[FN1] Moreover, following her disappearance, the specific key to the lock on this chest was discoveredinside the glove compartment of defendant's truck. Additionally, sand tubes matching thoseweighing down the chest and handcuffs matching those used on the victim were discovered indefendant's home. A bandana with a similar pattern as that used to gag the victim was also foundin his home.
By all accounts, defendant always wore a bandana on his head.[FN2] The one time he was seen without this accessory was on the night he arrived back in WashingtonCounty following his trip to help the victim move. According to the testimony of one ofdefendant's friends, defendant called her on route back to Washington County and thereafterstopped by her house. During their phone conversation, defendant informed her that the victimwould not "be bothering [him] anymore." During their face-to-face encounter, the friend noticeda cardboard box in the bed of defendant's truck and further observed that he was not wearing abandana, which was highly unusual.
This same friend testified that a few days after defendant returned to town, she observed thesubject truck chest in his truck. According to the friend, when she inquired about his need for it,defendant told her that he was using it for storage. He also told her that he was going fishing[*3]at the "lock" that day and that his fishing pole was inside thechest. According to the friend, defendant did not fish. There was additional testimony that,following the victim's disappearance, defendant paid a coworker to dispose of a bag which wasfound to contain identifiable personal items of the victim.
In seeking to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, defendantspecifically attacks the credibility of two key prosecution witnesses, namely, the auto parts storemanager who recalled selling him the truck chest (claiming her identification of him was taintedby news coverage of his arrest and a flawed photo array) and his friend who recalled seeing thatsame chest in his truck (claiming that others had not made the same observation and that this washer second appearance as a key witness in a murder case). These challenges to each witness'scredibility were explored during cross-examination. Although a contrary verdict might not havebeen unreasonable had the jury rejected the testimony of both of these witnesses, it was the jury'sprovince to resolve all credibility issues and this Court accords due deference to suchdeterminations (see e.g. People vGathers, 47 AD3d 959, 960 [2008]). Weighing the evidence in a neutral light (seePeople v Bleakley, supra), we conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Williams, 29 AD3d 1217, 1218-1219 [2006], lvdenied 7 NY3d 797 [2006]).
Next, we find no error in County Court's Molineux ruling whereby it permitted thePeople to introduce evidence concerning specific instances of defendant's threatening andcontrolling behavior toward the victim (compare People v Westerling, 48 AD3d 965[2008] [decided herewith]), as well as his threatening and assaultive behavior toward two formergirlfriends which resulted in convictions for unlawful imprisonment and menacing. Evidenceregarding defendant's prior abusive and threatening behavior toward the victim herself, whileprejudicial, was legally relevant and material to issues aside from defendant's propensity tocommit murder, namely, motive, intent, identity and relevant background information, and itsprobative value in this circumstantial evidence case outweighed its potential for prejudice (see People v Betters, 41 AD3d1040, 1042 [2007]; People vMiles, 36 AD3d 1021, 1022-1023 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 988 [2007]; People v Wlasiuk, 32 AD3d 674,676-677 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 871 [2006]; People v Williams, 29 AD3d at1219; People v Poquee, 9 AD3d781, 782 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 741 [2004]; see also People v Vega, 3 AD3d 239, 247-249 [2004], lvdenied 2 NY3d 766 [2004]; People v Bierenbaum, 301 AD2d 119, 150 [2002], lvdenied 99 NY2d 626 [2003], cert denied 540 US 821 [2003]).[FN3] Additionally, County Court gave proper and appropriate limiting instructions to the juryconcerning the permissible uses of this evidence thus limiting its prejudicial effect (seePeople v Betters, supra; People v Miles, supra; People v Poquee, supra;cf. People v Westerling, supra).
Likewise, we find no abuse of discretion in permitting evidence concerning incidentsinvolving defendant's former girlfriends, namely, that in 1996 he pushed down and choked hisgirlfriend (resulting in the menacing conviction) and that in 2000 he duct taped the mouth of[*4]another girlfriend, and choked and strangled her (resulting inthe unlawful imprisonment conviction). On each of these prior occasions, intervention of thirdparties diffused the attacks. These prior incidents, which do reveal a sufficiently distinctive crimepattern, were properly admitted to establish defendant's motive and identity as the victim'smurderer (see People v Toland, 284 AD2d 798 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 942[2001]; see also People v Latimer,24 AD3d 807, 808-809 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 849 [2006]). Moreover, theprobative value of these prior incidents in this circumstantial case outweighed the potential forprejudice (see People v Toland, supra), and County Court gave appropriate limitinginstructions.
Finally, we are unpersuaded that the auto parts store manager's identification of defendantwas the result of an unduly suggestive procedure and that a search warrant executed on his homewas defective.
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.
Footnote 1: In particular, the auto parts salesmanager who sold the truck chest recalled the sale and identified defendant as the person whohad purchased it.
Footnote 2: Notably, defendant so frequentlywore a bandanna that most witnesses who knew him did not recognize him at trial without one.
Footnote 3: Contrary to defendant'scontention, we find that County Court did engage in a substantive balancing test of the probativevalue of all evidence against its potential to unduly prejudice him (compare People vWlasiuk, 32 AD3d at 678).