People v. Romero
NY Slip Op 08640 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court's citation to historical precedent concerning deference to jury credibility findings, such as People v. Gaimari, does not in itself indicate that the court failed to apply the modern weight of the evidence standard from People v. Bleakley, as deference to the fact-finder is a core component of the modern standard.
Facts:
- On November 1, 1990, Rafael Baez, Etienne Adorno, and Demetrio Flores drove to a location in northern Manhattan with the intent to rob a drug dealer.
- Baez exited the car to make a phone call.
- Ubaldo Romero and his brothers, who operated a narcotics trafficking enterprise in the area, were alerted to the presence of the would-be robbers.
- Romero's group gathered firearms, emerged from a nearby apartment building, and approached the vehicle.
- The group, including Ubaldo Romero, fired their weapons at the car.
- The shooting resulted in the deaths of Etienne Adorno and Demetrio Flores.
Procedural Posture:
- Ubaldo Romero and his brothers were indicted for two counts of intentional murder in the second degree.
- Their first trial in the state trial court resulted in a mistrial when the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.
- Following a retrial, a jury convicted Ubaldo Romero and his brother Robert of both homicide counts.
- Romero, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court), arguing that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the People were the appellee.
- A Judge of the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) granted Romero leave to appeal the Appellate Division's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an intermediate appellate court's exclusive citation to People v. Gaimari in rejecting a defendant's weight of the evidence claim demonstrate that the court applied an incorrect legal standard by failing to conduct the required two-step factual review established in People v. Bleakley?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
No. An appellate court's citation to People v. Gaimari does not inherently indicate that it failed to apply the correct weight of the evidence standard. The court's reasoning demonstrates that the modern standard, established in People v. Bleakley, incorporates the deference to jury credibility findings that was articulated in Gaimari. The Bleakley standard requires a two-step analysis: first, determining if a different verdict would have been unreasonable, and if not, weighing the conflicting evidence like a 'thirteenth juror' while still according great deference to the jury's opportunity to observe witnesses. The Appellate Division’s opinion, which noted that the jury properly considered witness credibility and that inconsistencies could be attributed to the chaotic nature of the event, was consistent with this standard. Although citing older precedent is not ideal and can cause confusion, it is not a reversible error if the court's underlying analysis is sound.
Analysis:
This decision harmonizes historical and modern standards for weight of the evidence review in New York, confirming that the two-part test from People v. Bleakley is the controlling precedent. The Court clarifies that deference to a jury's credibility findings, a principle from older cases like Gaimari, is not superseded by but is an integral part of the modern Bleakley analysis. While affirming the conviction, the Court prospectively guided lower courts to cite contemporary cases like Bleakley to avoid ambiguity and demonstrate that the proper, active review was conducted, thereby reinforcing procedural clarity in appellate practice.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Romero