People v. Harmon, 65 N.Y.2d 269 (1985)

When prosecution expert witnesses present conflicting opinions, the jury can still find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if other evidence and the opinion of one expert reasonably support that conclusion.

Summary

Harold Harmon was convicted of felony murder for setting a fire that killed six firemen. At trial, the prosecution presented conflicting expert testimony regarding the fire’s origin. Harmon argued that this conflict precluded a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury could reconcile the conflicting expert opinions with other evidence to conclude guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the jury’s role in assessing witness credibility and drawing justifiable inferences.

Facts

On August 2, 1978, six firemen died fighting a fire at a Waldbaum’s Supermarket in Brooklyn after the roof collapsed. Harold Harmon, while incarcerated, admitted to Julio Cruz that he set the fire for payment. Harmon confessed in statements to authorities that he, along with others, made holes in the roof, stuffed them with paper, poured lighter fluid, and ignited it before dawn. At trial, a fire marshal testified that the fire originated from accelerants at four points within the store and burned upward. However, an arson detective testified that the fire was a “drop fire” that burned downward from the roof.

Procedural History

Harmon was convicted in the trial court of six counts of felony murder and one count of second-degree arson. He moved to set aside the verdict, arguing insufficient evidence and newly discovered evidence, which was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision without opinion. Harmon then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the conflicting testimony of two prosecution expert witnesses precluded the jury from finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Holding

No, because the jury, in conjunction with other evidence presented, was able to reasonably conclude from the opinion of one of the experts that Harmon was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from situations involving a single witness providing hopelessly contradictory testimony. The court stated that conflicting testimony from multiple witnesses simply creates a credibility question for the jury to resolve. Expert opinions are based on observed facts and qualifications, creating a factual matrix for the jury to determine which opinion to accept. The court emphasized, “When all of the evidence of guilt comes from a single prosecution witness who gives irreconcilable testimony pointing both to guilt and innocence, the jury is left without basis, other than impermissible speculation, for its determination of either.” However, the court found that in this case, Harmon’s confession, coupled with the detective’s testimony that the fire began on the roof, provided sufficient evidence for the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the fire marshal’s conflicting opinion. The court noted that corroboration of Harmon’s statements only needed to be of circumstances “’calculated to suggest the commission of crime, and for the explanation of which the confession furnishes the key’” (quoting People v. Murray, 40 N.Y.2d 327, 332). The court concluded that the evidence supported the jury’s inference that the fire began on the roof, consistent with Harmon’s confession, and dropped into the mezzanine where it was discovered. Therefore, the jury was entitled to weigh the expert’s conflicting testimony and reach a conclusion based on the evidence as a whole.