10 N.Y.3d 875 (2008)

When conducting a weight of the evidence review, the Appellate Division must assess the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury.

Summary

Fatin Johnson was convicted of depraved indifference murder for shooting his brother. The Appellate Division affirmed, rejecting his challenge to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed and remitted, holding that while the Appellate Division considered witness credibility (essential for weight of evidence review), it failed to explicitly assess the evidence in light of the elements of depraved indifference murder as charged to the jury. The Court emphasized the importance of the Appellate Division demonstrating that it properly considered the elements of the crime when conducting a weight of the evidence review.

Facts

Fatin Johnson and his brother, Amir, argued over money. Amir advanced towards Fatin, who then shot Amir in the back from approximately 30 feet away, resulting in Amir’s death. Two eyewitnesses observed the altercation and identified Fatin as the shooter in a lineup and at trial. One eyewitness pleaded with Johnson not to shoot as children were nearby. Johnson was later indicted for intentional and depraved indifference murder, as well as weapon possession charges.

Procedural History

A jury acquitted Johnson of intentional murder and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon but convicted him of depraved indifference murder and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, with two justices dissenting. The dissenting justices argued that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence, suggesting a reduction to second-degree manslaughter. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Appellate Division, in performing a weight of the evidence review, adequately assessed the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury?

Holding

1. No, because the Appellate Division’s opinion did not demonstrate it assessed the evidence in light of the elements of depraved indifference murder as charged.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that sufficiency and weight of the evidence reviews are distinct analyses. While the Appellate Division considered witness credibility, a factor essential for weight of the evidence review, its opinion did not explicitly state that it assessed the evidence in light of the elements of the crime, and did not otherwise offer confirmation that it did so. The Court cited People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 (2007), where it explored the requisites for sufficiency and weight of the evidence review. The Court stated that the Appellate Division must manifest its weight of the evidence review power in a writing. Because the Appellate Division’s opinion did not explicitly state that it assessed the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury, the Court of Appeals remitted the case to the Appellate Division for such an assessment. The court stated, “Here, the court considered the credibility of witnesses…as is essential for a weight of the evidence review. But having chosen to manifest its weight of the evidence review power in a writing, the Appellate Division does not say that it assessed the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury, and the opinion does not otherwise offer confirmation that, in fact, it did.”