| People v Self |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06189 [75 AD3d 924] |
| July 22, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry L. Self,Appellant. |
—[*1]
Cardona, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Catena,J.), rendered January 7, 2009, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of arson in thesecond degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree.
Late in the evening of March 7, 2008, Jason Savoie engaged in an extended telephoneargument with Walter Albino. As a result, Savoie determined to fight Albino. Thereafter, in theearly morning hours of the next day, Savoie drove to Albino's house, accompanied by defendant,who also had a dispute with Albino. Also in the car were several of their friends, includingJocelyn Bishop, Brandi Loney and Lyndsay Iannotti. When they arrived, Savoie and defendantwalked onto the porch and knocked on Albino's door; there was no response. According toSavoie, he then picked up a plastic gasoline container found near the doorway, poured fuel ontothe porch and defendant ignited the gasoline. Albino reported that, at the time of these events, heheard voices outside his house, followed by "people running away." He then saw "a glarecoming from the porch" and, after going outside to investigate, discovered the porch fire, whichhe extinguished with snow.
Subsequently, defendant was arrested and charged with arson in the second degree and [*2]reckless endangerment in the first degree.[FN1]Following a trial, he was found guilty on both counts. Defendant was thereafter sentenced as asecond felony offender to an aggregate prison term of eight years, with five years of postreleasesupervision, prompting this appeal.
Initially, defendant contends that his convictions were not supported by legally sufficientevidence.[FN2]Specifically, with respect to the crime of arson in the second degree,[FN3]defendant maintains that the People did not establish that he was the person who started the fireon Albino's porch. Similarly, regarding the reckless endangerment in the first degreeconviction,[FN4]defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence that it was his "conduct[,] asopposed to the conduct of . . . Savoie[, that] created a grave risk of death toanother."
Notably, "[w]hen called upon to review the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view theevidence in the light most favorable to the People, and we will not disturb the verdict if theevidence demonstrates a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could lead arational person to the conclusion reached by the jury" (People v Vargas, 60 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2009], lv denied13 NY3d 750 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, the Peopleproduced legally sufficient evidence by means of Savoie's testimony establishing that it wasdefendant who ignited the gasoline after Savoie poured it on the porch. Although defendantmaintains that this accomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroborated as required by statute,our review of the record confirms that sufficient independent evidence "tending to connect thedefendant with the commission of [the crime]" (CPL 60.22 [1]) was offered to the jury so as tosatisfy the corroboration requirement (see People v Burns, 68 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2009], lv denied14 NY3d 798 [2010]). Specifically, Bishop, Loney and Iannotti testified that, shortly before thefire started, they observed defendant and Savoie on the porch and, further, Iannotti heard thesound of something "being poured onto the porch." Moreover, Bishop testified [*3]that she saw defendant holding a cigarette lighter as he and Savoieran from the porch after the flames started. While none of these witnesses saw defendant set thegasoline alight, their testimony was sufficient to provide corroboration connecting defendant tothe crimes (see id. at 1247; People v Rodriguez, 52 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2008]).
Finally, defendant challenges the jury's verdict as against the weight of the evidence, arguingthat the testimonies of Savoie and Bishop were unworthy of belief. However, the credibility ofthese witnesses was thoroughly challenged during cross-examination, and all relevant concernswere put before the jury (see People vDoyle, 48 AD3d 961, 963 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 862 [2008]). While adifferent result would not have been unreasonable herein, upon evaluating the evidence in aneutral light and giving appropriate deference to the jury's credibility determinations, it is ourview that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Burdick, 72 AD3d1399, 1401 [2010]; People vNesbitt, 69 AD3d 1109, 1111-1112 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 843 [2010];People v Burns, 68 AD3d at 1248).
Rose, Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote 1: Savoie was also arrested andseparately charged; he pleaded guilty to a lesser count of arson in the fourth degree in exchangefor his agreement to cooperate with the prosecution of defendant.
Footnote 2: Although somewhat unartfullyworded, defense counsel preserved the legal insufficiency issue for our review in his motion todismiss both charges at trial.
Footnote 3: As relevant herein, arson in thesecond degree requires proof that the defendant "intentionally damage[d] a building. . . by starting a fire . . . when . . . another person who isnot a participant in the crime is present in such building . . . at the time [and thedefendant knew of that person's presence] or the circumstances are such as to render the presenceof such a person therein a reasonable possibility" (Penal Law § 150.15).
Footnote 4: "A person is guilty of recklessendangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference tohuman life, he [or she] recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death toanother person" (Penal Law § 120.25).