People v. Gamble, 74 N.Y.2d 904 (1989)

A defendant’s direct statement, along with surrounding actions, can constitute direct evidence sufficient to prove the intimidation of a witness, even if the defendant characterizes the evidence as circumstantial.

Summary

Gamble was convicted of intimidating a witness. The key evidence was his statement to the complaining witness, made while awaiting police, threatening her if she cooperated. Gamble argued the evidence was circumstantial and insufficient. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Gamble’s statement was direct evidence and, when viewed with his actions, sufficient to prove he attempted to prevent the complainant from cooperating with police by instilling fear of physical injury. This case clarifies that a defendant’s explicit threat constitutes direct evidence of intent.

Facts

The complaining witness observed Gamble attempting to remove a stereo speaker from a car in a parking garage.
A security officer apprehended Gamble shortly after the witness saw him.
While waiting for the police, Gamble, standing five feet from the complainant and staring at her, said: “If you f_me up with the police, I will f_you up.”
Gamble continued to stare, curse, and make “physical profane statements” to the complainant.
The complainant understood Gamble’s words as a sexual threat and realized she would face consequences for cooperating with the police.

Procedural History

Gamble was convicted of intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree (Penal Law § 215.15 [1]).
Gamble appealed, arguing the evidence was legally insufficient.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
Gamble appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether Gamble’s statement and actions constituted sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree under Penal Law § 215.15 [1].

Holding

Yes, because Gamble’s statement constituted direct evidence of the crime and, when viewed in conjunction with the other evidence, was sufficient to establish that Gamble attempted to prevent the complainant from communicating information about the crime to the police by instilling fear of physical injury.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that Gamble’s statement, “If you f_me up with the police, I will f_you up,” was not circumstantial evidence but a direct element of the crime. The court emphasized that it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, citing People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621. The court determined that the statement, coupled with Gamble’s staring, cursing, and “physical profane statements,” was sufficient to prove that Gamble knew the complainant had information about a crime and that he wrongfully attempted to compel her to refrain from communicating that information to the police. The court specifically highlighted the element of instilling fear of physical injury, as outlined in Penal Law § 215.15 [1]. By explicitly threatening the complainant if she cooperated with the police, Gamble directly communicated his intent to cause her harm. The court found that the complainant’s subjective understanding of the threat as a sexual threat further supported the conclusion that Gamble intended to instill fear. The court implicitly rejected Gamble’s argument that the evidence was equivocal, finding that the totality of his words and actions clearly demonstrated an attempt to intimidate the witness. Therefore, the direct nature of the threat, combined with the surrounding circumstances, provided a sufficient basis for the conviction.