People v. Whatley, 505 N.E.2d 620 (N.Y. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Whatley, 505 N.E.2d 620 (N.Y. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
58 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Mansfield (nyappdiv, 2024-01-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mansfield
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
People v Whatley , 69 NY2d 784, 785 [1987]; People v Austin , 290 AD2d 225, 226 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 750 [2002]; People v Hames , 261 AD2d 193 , 193 [1st Dept 1999], lv [*4]denied 93 NY2d 1003 [1999]; People v Coll , 157 AD2d 502, 502-503 [1st Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 732 [1990]). [FN1] The proof also left no question that the efforts of defendant and the codefendants came very near to succeeding so as to constitute attempts to possess the handguns and cocaine; indeed, they did retrieve the handguns and cocaine from the Honda Accord and would have likely succeeded in getting…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Carlos Tapia
NY · 2019 · confidence medium
On the other hand, we have held the “community of purpose” doctrine is satisfied where, for example, there is “evidence of prior planning and then active participation” (People v Brathwaite, , 63 NY2d 839, 842 [1984]), or the defendant was aware that a weapon was carried to the encounter from the outset (see People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784, 785 [1987]), or the defendant was present when the principal approached the victim with the injury-causing weapon (see Scott, 25 NY3d at 1110 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Maull
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
We therefore conclude that there is sufficient evidence whereby "the jury . . . could fairly find that defendant either shot [the victim] or . . . participated in the planning to kill him and shared the intent of the shooter to do so" ( People v Whatley , 69 NY2d 784, 785 [1987]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Singh
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Even if the defendant did not initially plan that his friends would use forcible compulsion, the totality of the evidence permitted the jury to infer that the defendant knew that the codefendants, once inside the bedroom, were, in fact, using forcible compulsion, and that “he knowingly participated and continued to participate even after his companion[s’] intentions became clear” (People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830, 832 [1988]; see Penal Law § 20.00; People v Rossey, 89 NY2d 970, 972 [1997]; People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784, 785 [1987]; People v Clark, 222 AD2d 446, 447 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Singh
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Even if the defendant did not initially plan that his friends would use forcible compulsion, the totality of the evidence permitted the jury to infer that the defendant knew that the codefendants, once inside the bedroom, were, in fact, using forcible compulsion, and that “he knowingly participated and continued to participate even after his companion[s’] intentions became clear” (People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830, 832 [1988]; see Penal Law § 20.00; People v Rossey, 89 NY2d 970, 972 [1997]; People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784, 785 [1987]; People v Clark, 222 AD2d 446, 447 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Devers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
The evidence presented by the People demonstrated that the defendant, with the requisite mental state, acted in concert with and intentionally aided another person in shooting the victim (see People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]; People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784, 785 [1987]; People v Cancel, 70 AD3d 960 [2010]; People v Woodbourne, 237 AD2d 547 [1997]; People v Cheng, 232 AD2d 651 [1996]; People v Armistead, 178 AD2d 607, 608 [1991]; People v Johnson, 162 AD2d 620 [1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Collazo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and deferring to the jury’s credibility determinations, we find that the weight of the evidence established that defendant, with "the requisite mental state, acted in concert with and intentionally aided Calderon in the commission of the charged crimes (see Penal Law § 20.00; People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784, 785 [1987]; People v Rosado, 26 AD3d 532, 533 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 762 [2006]; People v McDonald, 257 AD2d 695, 695-696 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 876 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kearney
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
In any event, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Cabey, 85 NY2d 417, 420 [1995]), the testimony was more than sufficient to enable a rational jury to conclude that defendant committed each of the charged crimes, including attempted murder as an accomplice (see id. at 420-422 ; People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784, 785 [1987]; People v Rosado, supra at 533 ; People v McDonald, 257 AD2d 695, 696 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 876 [1999]; People v Motter, 235 AD2d 582, 585 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 1038 [1997]; People v Pittman, 189 AD2d 918, 918-919 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 891 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rosado
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that defendant acted in concert with, and intentionally aided, Polanco, Estrella and Kearney with the requisite mental state (see Penal Law § 20.00; People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784, 785 [1987]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Howard
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient for the jury to infer that the appellant knew of his accomplice’s possession of the gun and shared his accomplice’s mens rea and, therefore, was equally liable for the acts committed by the accomplice (see Penal Law § 20.00; People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784, 785 [1987]; People v Knight, 192 AD2d 676 [1993]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Chapman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
The People presented evidence establishing that defendant shared the shooter’s intent to cause serious physical injury to the victim and intentionally aided the shooter by providing him with the weapon and informing the victim where the shooter was located, thereby leading the victim to the shooter (see Penal Law § 20.00; People v Rosado, 26 AD3d 532 [2006]; People v Camacho, 22 AD3d 367 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 752 [2005]; People v McLean, 307 AD2d 586, 587 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 643 [2003]; see generally People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784, 785 [1987]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. East
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, supra, at 621), the evidence establishes that at least four persons in the group assaulted the victim and that, as charged to the jury, even more were “in a position to render immediate assistance to a person participating in the assault.” The evidence is also legally sufficient to establish that defendant “shared a ‘community of purpose’ with his companion[s]” when they each kicked the victim in the head (People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830, 832 ; see, People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784 ; Penal Law § 20.00).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Orlando v. Nassau County D.A. Office (3×)
E.D.N.Y · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
Penal Law § 20.00 (“Criminal Liability for Conduct of Another”) (McKinney 2017); see also People v. Whatley, 69 N.Y.2d 784 , 513 N.Y.S.2d 110 , 505 N.E.2d 620 (1987); Maldonado v. Scully, 86 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Jolly
N.Y. App. Div. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
Further, the facts adduced at trial provided a sufficient basis for the jury’s verdict, since the conclusions of guilt were consistent with and flowed naturally from them (see, People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196 ; see also, People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784 ; People v Cotto, 176 AD2d 291 ; People v White, 162 AD2d 646 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Calvin
N.Y. App. Div. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
Further, the facts adduced at trial provided a sufficient basis for the jury’s verdict, since the conclusions of guilt were consistent with and flowed naturally from them (see, People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196 ; see also, People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784 ; People v Cotto, 176 AD2d 291 ; People v White, 162 AD2d 646 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jerry Whatley, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 12, 1987.
505 N.E.2d 620
1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15352
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Robert S. Dean and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant., Mario Merola, District Attorney (Billie Manning and Peter D. Coddington of counsel), for respondent.
Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa Concur.
Cited by 55 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

[*785] Defendant has been convicted of murder, second degree, after a jury trial. He does not deny that he was present at the scene of the crime but he denies that he shot decedent or that he knew of the intention of the shooter to do so. The People submitted circumstantial evidence that: defendant sought out decedent at a social gathering at the home of a friend; he induced him to leave the group to resolve a dispute with decedent’s cousin; the two men left the gathering with two women and went to defendant’s car in which another man was waiting; they took the two women home, then drove directly to a darkened corner of 166th Street and Washington Avenue in The Bronx, where, after a witnessed argument between decedent and one of the two men from defendant’s car over decedent’s "squealing”, an argument which lasted several minutes, decedent was killed by repeated shotgun blasts fired at close range.

Defendant’s actions and the timing of the events of the evening permitted the jury to infer that defendant, decedent and the other man drove directly to the murder scene after dropping off the women, that the two men had a shotgun with them from the outset and that defendant must have known of it because of the difficulty of concealing it in his car. The jury also could consider that the accessory was present for several minutes in the waiting car while the shooter argued with decedent while holding a shotgun and from all this it could fairly find that defendant either shot decedent or participated in the planning to kill him and shared the intent of the shooter to do so.

Defendant also contends that in view of the uncertain identification testimony of the eyewitness to the killing, the court could not properly instruct the jury that it could find him guilty of murder either as an accessory or as a principal. Inasmuch as the indictment charged defendant with murder under an acting in concert theory and there was evidence which, if accepted by the jury, would support a finding that defendant was either the shooter or the driver of the car, the charge was correct (see, People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74; People v Benzinger, 36 NY2d 29).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.