People v Bates
Annotate this CaseDecided on June 30, 2004
Criminal Court, New York County
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v ROCHELLE BATES, Defendant.
2003NY031357
Gerald Harris, J.
The defendant, Rochelle Bates, was convicted, after a jury trial, of Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 195.05). She moves, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) § 330.30, to set aside the verdict on the grounds that (1) the evidence supporting the conviction is legally insufficient and (2) the conviction is inconsistent with the defendant's acquittal on other charges, namely, resisting arrest, attempted assault in the third degree and harassment.
A claim of repugnancy in the verdict is waived for failure to object to the verdict prior to the discharge of the jury (see, People v. Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985; People v. Stahl, 53 NY2d 1048). In any event, a guilty verdict on one count should only be set aside as repugnant if it is inherently inconsistent with a verdict of not guilty on another count, and when the crime charged in one count contains the same element as the other count. People v. Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 4, rearg. denied 55 NY2d 1039 (1982); People v. La Pella, 135 AD2d 735 (2d Dept. 1987) appeal denied, 71 NY2d 898 (1988). "Review of the entire record in an attempt to divine the jury's collective mental process of weighing the evidence is inappropriate" People v. Tucker, supra at 4.
Here, elements of each charge, including the nature of the intent required to be shown, differ materially and there is no inherent inconsistency in finding the defendant guilty of Obstructing Governmental Administration while acquitting her of the other charges. The defendant's acquittal on three counts did not necessarily negate an essential element of the remaining count upon which she was convicted (see, People v. Goodfriend, 64 NY2d 695 [1984]).
The defendant's contention, that the evidence supporting the conviction is insufficient as a matter of law, is also without merit. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the court must determine whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rationale person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial. People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 (1987).
"'The standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether 'after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt'" (People v. Calabria, __ NY3d __ [2004], 2004 WL 1243369, citing People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620,621 [1983]).
In Calabria, the Court of Appeals said further; "we have previously recognized that the testimony of one witness can be enough to support a conviction, noting that it is typically the [*2]province of the jury to determine a witness's credibility (see, People v. Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567,578 [1982])". Id.
Here, the jury could have reasonably accepted the testimony of Police Officer Diaz, that the defendant intentionally struck his summons book from his hand as he attempted to issue a violation to the defendant. Since, there is a rational basis for the jury's verdict, convicting the defendant of Obstructing Governmental Administration, the court may not set aside the verdict as legally insufficient.
Accordingly, the defendant's motion, pursuant to CPL § 330.30(1), to set aside the verdict, is denied.
This opinion constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Dated: June 30, 2004
New York, New York
___________________________
GERALD HARRIS
Judge of the Criminal Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
