People of the State of New York v. Randall A. Scott
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law—accessorial liability for second-degree murder based on circumstantial evidence of shared intent.
A Monroe County jury convicted Scott of murder in the second degree under Penal Law § 125.25(1) [intentional murder: with intent to cause the death of another person, causes the death of such person] on a theory of accessorial liability under Penal Law § 20.00 [accomplice liability: acting with the required mental culpability, one solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids another to engage in the conduct].
The judgment of conviction was reversed and the indictment dismissed; the matter was remitted for proceedings pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 470.45 [procedure upon appellate reversal/dismissal].
The People proved only that Scott drove the shooter to and from the scene and fled after shots were fired. There was no evidence Scott shared the shooter’s intent to kill, knew the shooter was armed, or discussed a plan to kill the victim. Presence, transportation, and post-crime assistance are insufficient to establish shared homicidal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Even assuming legal sufficiency, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Background
The codefendant, tracked by a GPS ankle bracelet, was established as the shooter. Video placed Scott’s distinctive vehicle in locations aligning with the codefendant’s movements. Scott admitted transporting the codefendant to and from the scene. The codefendant used a disguise and Scott maneuvered his vehicle to facilitate a quick exit, but the record lacked proof of any conversation about a shooting, prior relationship, or that Scott knew of a firearm or plan to kill. Alternative inferences—such as a contemplated robbery or Scott’s ignorance of the codefendant’s intent—were not excluded.
Lower Court Decision
Monroe County Court entered a May 9, 2023 judgment on a jury verdict finding Scott guilty of second-degree murder under Penal Law § 125.25(1) via accomplice liability under Penal Law § 20.00.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed on the law, dismissed the indictment, and remitted under CPL 470.45. The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to prove Scott shared the shooter’s intent to kill; at most, it showed intentional aid after the homicide. Alternatively, even if legally sufficient, the conviction was against the weight of the evidence given the absence of proof that Scott knew of a weapon or homicidal plan and the failure to exclude non-homicidal purposes.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that accessorial liability for intentional murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged accomplice shared the principal’s homicidal intent. Mere presence, transportation, or post-crime assistance—even paired with suspicious movements or disguises—does not suffice where alternative, non-homicidal inferences are reasonable. The decision follows People v. La Belle and related precedents emphasizing the necessity of a community of purpose.
To convict a getaway driver as an accessory to intentional murder, the People must prove the driver shared the intent to kill; circumstantial evidence limited to transport and flight, without proof of knowledge of a weapon or plan, is insufficient.