New York's Chief Justice attacks criminal conviction of mentally-ill man

This criminal case is notable not for its holding but its dissenting opinion, where the Chief Judge of the State of New York wonders why a mentally-ill defendant was convicted of burglarizing a CVS store in Manhattan. The dissent (to which only Judge Halligan signed on) offers a rare sociological attack on the criminal justice system.

The case is People v. Williams, issued on February 18. Defendant was charged with burglary in the third degree based on his trespass on the premises of a CVS with intent to steal Red Bull energy drinks The majority holds the jury could have found that defendant knew his entry into the store was unlawful based on the trespass notice that defendant had signed, prohibiting his entry into any CVS location. What about the intent element? Surveillance footage depicted the defendant outside the CVS acting in a furtive manner. The store manager testified that defendant slammed the Red Bull items down and stormed out when the manager demanded that defendant turn over the Red Bull. Defendant later admitted to the police that he "fucked up," he "did it," and "all I took was a Red Bull."

Now for the dissent. This may seem like a routine case, but the Chief starts out with this:

Two cans of Red Bull cost about $6. Seven years of incarceration costs anywhere between $800,000 and $4 million, depending on the location within New York State. For attempting to take two cans of Red Bull from a CVS, Raymond Williams was convicted of third-degree burglary, a felony, and sentenced to three and a half to seven years in prison. Mr. Williams was a perpetual petty shoplifter with substance abuse and mental health problems, so perhaps this result makes sense to someone. It does not to me.

The Chief adds:

Mr. Williams's story is not uncommon. For much of his life, he has struggled with homelessness and drug addiction. Both factors disproportionately increase the risk of being caught up in the criminal justice system and sentenced to spend time in prison. Mr. Williams had previously been found guilty of many minor shoplifting offenses, including from other CVS stores. His problems were addressed by sentences of incarceration and probation, not treatment.

Mr. Williams's prosecution occurred in 2017. His appeal comes to us 8 years later, and the People's brief in our Court explains that what happened to Mr. Williams back then is not what would happen now:

"For retail-theft cases where a defendant does not present a serious public safety risk, the Office now typically pursues multiple alternatives to incarceration. Defendants charged with a retail-theft felony are frequently diverted to the problem-solving courts under CPL Article 216 or similar provisions, where, in place of incarceration, they can receive programming to address underlying problems of substance abuse, mental health, and more. Defendants charged with a retail-theft misdemeanor are also routinely directed to an array of behavioral health court parts and programs, including the Midtown Community Justice Center, Manhattan Justice Opportunities, and others."

Apart from the psychiatric and fiscal wisdom of charging and convicting defendant, the Chief states that the jury could not have reasonably convicted him of intending to steal the two Red Bulls. The surveillance video shows defendant entering the CVS with a bag. He took two cans from the beverage cooler but did not exit the store with them. Instead, he headed to the front of the store. Nor did he put the cans in his bag or pockets. A CVS recognized defendant as someone subject to a trespass notice, and when a manager confronted defendant, he handed over the Red Bulls and left the store.

This evidence, Judge Wilson states, is not enough to convict defendant. Any suggestion that defendant entered the store with intent to steal the Red Bulls is conjecture. Nor did defendant's statements to the police a month later ("I fucked up") support a finding of guilt, as these "admissions" are taken out of context. He did not actually admit to taking any Red Bulls from the CVS.

The Chief returns to the broader social implications of a conviction like this. He writes:

Imprisoning someone for attempting to walk off with two cans of Red Bull—even a recidivist Red Bull shoplifter—for three and a half to seven years is very hard to justify to the public. Belatedly, one of the jurors in Mr. Williams case recognized that, and also explained that the jury convicted Mr. Williams based not on the evidence of his conduct that day, but on the trespass notice from a prior incident, thus underscoring the point that the evidence offered as proof of Mr. Williams's intent to steal was insufficient to persuade the jury. At trial, the court instructed the jury that the trespass notice could not be used to show that Mr. Williams intended to steal or had a propensity to steal, but could be used by the jury solely to establish that Mr. Williams's entry to the CVS was unlawful, which is a necessary element of burglary.

A juror wrote to the trial court about the case, stating that defendant did not deserve to be imprisoned for this offense. The juror adds that she tried to persuade the other jurors that defendant was innocent. While the juror herself voted to convict, she wrote, "I now have tremendous doubt about that decision, but I recognize that it's too late. I feel deep remorse[.]

The Chief then says:

A 2020 survey of more than 1000 Americans, conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, showed that more than two-thirds of those surveyed believed the U.S. criminal justice system (including the police, prosecutors, defense counsel, courts and prisons) either needed reforms or a complete overhaul. More than four times as many thought a complete overhaul was required than those who thought no changes were needed. Those findings are in line with many other studies conducted over the past decade. A majority of Americans also support treating addiction as a health problem rather than a criminal problem, and support treatment over incarceration for people with drug addiction and mental illness.

Mr. Williams's case illustrates so many of the reasons for that lack of trust and confidence. Persistent recidivist shoplifting is a significant problem. It is constantly frustrating for shoppers, who have to wait to have displays unlocked, and for retailers, who lose countless items to theft. But charging the attempted theft of two Red Bulls as felony burglary reveals a different persistent problem: the prosecutorial overcharging of petty offenses. As explained by the current Manhattan District Attorney's office in its brief in this appeal, treating petty offenders with mental health and/or substance abuse problems as dangerous criminals is unhelpful, is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars that could be better spent on addressing those problems instead of incarceration, and is not now the paradigm used by that office.

 He adds, 

Punishing Mr. Williams for offenses growing out of his addiction and poverty is neither necessary nor fair—not just unnecessary and unfair to Mr. Williams, but to the community at large. People living with mental illness or addiction in New York are much more likely to encounter the criminal justice system—even though community-based treatment is cheaper and more effective than services in prison. Unhoused people are also much more likely—up to 11 times more likely—to be arrested than those who are housed^. But incarceration does nothing to address their health and housing needs. Misdemeanor convictions for offenses such as petty larceny reduce earning potential and deepen inequality. The resources we use to incarcerate those populations could be better spent on housing, job training and educational support. "Let's just be honest: there's nothing compassionate about letting people suffer without treatment on the streets."