NY appeals court upholds murder conviction in split ruling

In a split decision, a state appeals court has upheld multiple convictions, including murder.

In December 2022, before state Supreme Court Justice Vincent M. Dinolfo, defendant Jonathan Spinks was convicted after a trial that combined two indictments.

Spinks was convicted of second-degree murder, and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon for fatally shooting a coworker on Oct. 2, 2020.

He also was convicted of attempted second-degree murder, first-degree assault, first-degree burglary, and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, stemming from a shootout on Oct. 10, 2020.

Dinolfo granted the prosecution’s request to consolidate the indictments into a single trial.

“We conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in granting consolidation … because there is significant common evidence supporting both indictments,” according to a decision from the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department.

“Most importantly, the same weapon was involved in the events underlying both indictments, and … is the critical piece of evidence supporting both,” the court wrote.

“Jointly trying the two cases more securely connects defendant to the gun used in the underlying criminal incidents charged in the indictments,” the court wrote.

Presiding Justice Gerald J. Whalen dissented and voted to reverse the convictions.

“I respectfully disagree with the majority that Supreme Court properly consolidated the two indictments and instead conclude that consolidation was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law,” Whalen wrote.

In the first incident, Lysaun Curry was shot and killed on Oct. 2, 2020.  There were no witnesses to the shooting.  In the second incident, which took place on Oct. 10, 2020, Spinks and Day’Janique Cooper, were both shot while inside Cooper’s home.

Cooper claimed Spinks shot her after entering her home without permission and that she fired back in self-defense.

Spinks was charged in two separate indictments. The prosecution’s request to consolidate alleged that handgun was recovered during a search of Spinks’ home, and ballistics testing showed that the gun was used in both shootings.

Spinks’ attorney argued against consolidation, contending that Spinks would be prejudiced by joining the cases because there was more evidence of his guilt on the Cooper indictment and because consolidation would impact his decision to testify.

“I conclude that the court erred in granting consolidation,” Whalen wrote.

“The People failed to make a showing that evidence of the details of the Cooper assault would be material and admissible at a trial on the Curry murder,” he wrote.

Although the same gun was used in both crimes, the two incidents were not similar enough to allow the admission of evidence of the second crime to show a similarity of the modus operandi, Whalen wrote.

“All of the identity evidence linking defendant to the Curry murder could be adduced at the trial without the necessity of revealing the details of the burglary and assault alleged in the Cooper indictment,” he wrote.

Dinolfo failed to balance judicial economy against the potential for undue prejudice, Whalen wrote.

The prosecution claimed that multiple witnesses would have to be recalled to give identical testimony in two separate trials, but failed to identify the witnesses, other than the ballistics expert and the officers who executed a search warrant at Spinks’ home, Whalen noted.

“A review of the trial transcript demonstrates that only a limited number of the numerous witnesses at trial testified as to the charges in both indictments, and several of those who did provided only brief chain of custody testimony,” he wrote.

“The undue prejudice to defendant was not cured by a limiting instruction, as the court failed to follow through on its promise to instruct the jurors that the evidence must be considered separately,” Whalen pointed out.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035