People v Vincent
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
People v Vincent 2022 NY Slip Op 34625(U) September 28, 2022 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Ind. No. 19-0544 Judge: George E. Fufidio Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ------------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - against - RICHARD VINCENT, DECISION AND ORDER Ind. No. 19-0544 , SEP 2_9 2022" -L m1rc.1DON1 D~<Ql~~ ------------------------------------------------------------------X FUFIDIO, J. The Defendant, Richard Vincent, moves for an order pursuant to CPL 330.30 to set aside the non-jury trial verdict that convicted him of one count of manslaughter in the first degree. The defendant was acquitted of one count of murder in the second degree. In rendering this Decision and Order, the Court has considered the Defendant's motion, the People's Affirmation of Opposition and Memorandum of Law and presumably by way of reply, two.letters from the Defendant dated September 14, 2022 and September 15, 2022,"in which he asked the Court to consider several cases not cited in his original motion. In the Defendant's motion he argues his guilty verdict should be set aside pursuant to CPL 330.30 because, primarily, "there was no ·evidence presented to the Court at the trial showing that the defendant intended to cause physical injury to the victim, Randy Street ("Randy")," and concomitantly," ... the only evidence presented to the Court showed that the defendant had a valid justification defense in that it was Randy who was about to use deadly physical force against the defendant." Secondarily in a series of letters dated September 14, 2022 and September 15, 2022, he argues that because, "there is nothing on the record indicating whether the not guilty verdict on the Murder charge was based on justification" and therefore, / ~ccording to People v Feuer, 11 AD3d 633 [2 nd Dept. 2004] and People v Valentin; 154 AD3d 474 [1 st Dept. 2017], it was impossible to discern whether the acquittal on the Attempted Murder charge was based on justification .... " In essence, the Defendant is arguing that the Court should have credited his justification defense and that based upon the verdict, it is impossible to tell whether or not it did with respect to the murder acquittal. After a verdict is rendered and before sentence is imposed, a defendant may move to set aside the verdict on "any ground appearing in the record, which if raised upon an appeal from a 1 [* 1] i prospective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court," (CPL 330.30[1 ]). Since the authority to set aside a verdict is limited to grounds which would require reversal or modification on appeal, only an error of law which has been properly preserved for appellate review may serve as a basis for setting aside the verdict (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56 [2001]; People v Josey, 204 AD2d 571 [2d Dept 1994]; People v Amato, 238 AD2d 432, 433 [2d Dept 1997]; People v Thomas, 8 AD3d 303 [2d Dept 2004]). The Defendant's motion is denied for the following reasons: In the Defendant's first argument in which he has challenged the sufficiency of the People's evidence on the intent to cause serious bodily harm element, he claims that the only conclusion the Court could have drawn from the facts presented was that the Defendant acted in self-defense, a defense that was put forth almost entirely through the Defendant's own testimony. The Defendant moved at the close of the People's case and then again at the close of his own case for a trial order of dismissal, both of which were denied. The Court finds that line of argument is improperly preserved because the arguments he made in support of his motions were general, unelaborated and lacked the specificity that is required when arguing against a crime's mens rea element (People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, the standard for setting aside a verdict under CPL 330.30 is, after viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the People, could any rational trier of fact have found that the People proved the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]). It is evident that when applying the law to even the barest recitation of facts presented; that is that the Defendant who was armed with a knife, fought with the victim and slashed the victim's neck with the knife that this standard has been met (see e.g.; People v Gilford, 65 AD3d 840 [1 st Dept. 2009]; People v Elliot, 299 AD2d 731 [3 rd Dept. 2002]). Intermingled with the Defendant's first claim is his second claim; that the Court should have credited his justification defense as the only substantive evidence presented as to what happened and the Court should have acquitted him of the manslaughter charge as well, or alternatively, he argues that it is impossible to discern whether the Court did or did not credit his defense. To begin, it is long settled that credibility issues are the provenance of the fact finder; a jury in a jury trial or a judge in a bench trail, and such credibility determinations are given great deference (People v McCoy, 100 AD3d 1422 [4h Dept. 2012]). Indeed, despite often knowing 2 [* 2] more about the case and the Defendant than a jury would, ·courts are presumed to be fair and impartial when presiding over bench trials (People v Harris, 133 AD2d 649 [2 nd Dept. 1987]). Here, the Court, as fact finder, did riot credit the Defendant's justification defense. Continuing, while this Court did discharge its responsibility pursuant to CPL 320.20[5], by informing the parties which charges and defenses it would consider during its deliberation, the trial judge presiding over a bench trial is not required to state factual findings in reaching their verdict (People v Carter, 63 NY2d 530 [1984]) nor articulate a basis for the verdict (People v Cunningham, 95 NY2d 909 [2000]). Further, in contrast to lay jurors, trial judges are.presumed to know the law and apply it correctly (People v Stevenson, 63 AD3d 966 [2 nd Dept. 2009]). As the Defendant has pointed out, by a series of cases, People v Velez, 131 AD3d 129 [1 st Dept. 2015]; People v Valentin, 154 AD3d 474 [Pt Dept. 2017]; People v Feuer, 11 AD3d 633 [2 nd . Dept. 2004] and People v Roberts, 280 AD2d 415 [Pt Dept. 2001]), a jury is required to be instructed that an acquittal of murder in the second degree based on a justification defense necessarily precludes a conviction on a manslaughter in the first degree charge. However, the cases that the Defendant has cited are distinguishable in that they find fault with the failure of the trial court to properly instruct the fact findingjury, but because of the presumption explained .in Stevenson, supra, the Court does not need to instruct itself. A jury, unlike a fact finding judge, is not presumed to know the law and needs to be instructed on it, which is why the failure to instruct them properly was problematic in the cases the Defendant cited (People v Ciaccio, 4 7 NY2d 431,436 [1979][Courtsare required to inform the jury of fundamental criminal law principals as well as the legal principals that apply to each particular case and the application of the law to the facts][emphasis added]). Once the jury is instructed, they are presumed to have followed the instructions (People v Daughtry, 260 AD2d 396 [2 nd Dept. 1999]). The Defendant has not shown that the Court incorrectly applied the law. Here, the Court did not credit the Defendant's testimony regarding his justification defense and the Defendant has not shown that the presumption that the Court correctly applied the law is inapplicable in this case. The verdicts themselves are not repugnant, it is entirely permissible, in the absence of a credible justification defense, to acquit a defendant of murder in the second degree and convict him of manslaughter in the first degree (see, e.g. People v Stevenson, 63 AD3d 966 [2 nd Dept. 2009]). As the Defendant has pointed out, by a series of cases, People v Velez, 131 AD3d 129 [1 st Dept. 2015]; People v Valentin, 154 AD3d 4 74 [l st Dept. 2017]; People v Feuer, 11 AD3d 633 [2 nd Dept. 2004] and People v Roberts, 280 AD2d 415 [Pt Dept. 2001]). 3 [* 3] Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the motion is DENIED in its entirety. The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this court. Dated: White Plains, New York September 28, 2022 ' t Honorab Westchester TO: HON. MIRIAM E. ROCAH District Attorney, Westchester County 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard White Plains, New York 10601 BY: LAURA M. MURPHY, ESQ Assistant District Attorney ELIZABETH Z. MARCUS, ESQ Assistant District Attorney ROBERT G. SCHNEIDER, ESQ. Attorney for the Defendant P.O. Box 168 Somers, New York 10589 , 4 [* 4] ourt Judge
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.
