ASSAULT AND BATTERY Category Archives — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

New York Court Decides Prosecution Properly Charged Defendant in Burglary-Related Case

May 8, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a procedurally complex case, the New York Court of Appeals recently issued a decision reversing an appellate court’s decision in favor of the criminal defendant. The defendant originally faced charges after he broke into a college dormitory, supposedly attempting to sexually assault girls in the dormitory. At trial, the defendant was convicted of second-degree burglary but acquitted of a second offense, “burglary in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony.” He appealed; the appellate court reversed; and the New York Court of Appeals ultimately reversed again to reinstate the defendant’s conviction of burglary in the second degree.

Burglary v. Burglary as a Sexually Motivated Felony

The state first charged the defendant with “burglary in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony.” Under this charge, the prosecution would have to show that the defendant 1) committed the burglary and 2) committed the burglary because, in substantial part, of his own sexual gratification.

New York Defendant Successfully Appeals Sentence in Assault Case Based on Age at His Time of the Crime

October 30, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent matter before the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, the court modified a defendant’s judgment in his favor, vacating part of his sentence for an assault conviction from 2013. The defendant asked the court to reconsider part of his sentence given his young age at the time of the conviction. The State conceded that the sentence should be altered, and the Court ultimately granted the defendant’s request.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant pled guilty to one count of assault in the first degree and one count of assault in the second degree in 2013. Months later, the defendant appealed, arguing that his plea should be vacated because the court did not take into account that he might have been eligible for youthful offender treatment, which typically means that a defendant is sentenced to less time in prison because of his or her young age at the time of his or her conviction and which would mean that he doesn’t have a criminal record.

The court denied the defendant’s appeal, and the defendant challenged this decision. The higher court decided it was willing to at least hear the defendant’s argument regarding his position that the lower court should resentence him given his age at the time of the conviction.

New York Defendant in Reckless Assault Case Challenges Lower Court’s Denial of Motion to Suppress

October 11, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent assault case in New York before the Appellate Division, Second Department, the defendant asked the court to reconsider a lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant was charged with and convicted of reckless assault of a child and endangering the welfare of a child. On appeal, he argued that because no one informed him of his Miranda rights, the statement he made to a police officer was inadmissible in court. Reviewing the record, the higher court denied the defendant’s appeal, affirming his conviction as well as the resulting sentence.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant first interacted with police officers in this case when his four-week-old baby was being treated for serious injuries in the hospital. Officers asked the defendant how his baby got the injuries, and they later discovered that the defendant had been shaking the baby, which ultimately caused the injuries.

The State charged the defendant, and he filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to officers in the hospital. According to the defendant, he revealed incriminating information during this conversation, and the statements were inadmissible because no one ever read him his Miranda rights, which are required under the law. The lower court denied the motion to suppress, and the defendant promptly appealed.

New York Defendant Loses Appeal After Standoff with Police Officers, While Appellate Division Highlights Elements of “Menacing a Police Officer” Crime

August 30, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a July 2023 case before the Appellate Division, Third Department in New York, the defendant asked for the court to reconsider his guilty verdict for menacing a police officer pursuant to Penal law 120.18. According to the defendant, there was insufficient evidence to allow a jury to find him guilty, and the court should vacate the conviction as well as the related sentence. The court looked at the facts of the case, weighed the evidence, and eventually disagreed with the defendant, keeping his conviction in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two deputy sheriffs went to the defendant’s home because he had failed to pay child support in accordance with his legal obligation. The sheriffs knocked on the defendant’s door to serve him with a warrant for his arrest. The defendant refused to allow the sheriffs to enter, at which point they called for backup and then pounded down the door.

The officers found the defendant standing at the entryway to his home with a rifle. The officers retreated and took cover, and a stand-off ensued that lasted two hours. Eventually, the defendant exited his home, having abandoned the weapon. The officers arrested him.

New York Court Looks at Justification Defense in Recent Assault Case

August 13, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

As we have discussed, the defense of justification, or self-defense is one of the most important defenses that exist in New York criminal law. Once the defense of self defense is raised the burden is on the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Recently, the Appellate Division, Second Department in New York denied a defendant’s appeal in a 2019 assault case in which the defense of self-defense was raised. Faced with the defendant’s appeal, the court looked at the entire trial record to see if it agreed with the defendant’s claim that he acted in self-defense. The Court pointed out that many of the issues raised on appeal were unpreserved for appellate review. Ultimately deciding the defendant’s argument was not persuasive, however, the court denied his appeal and kept the defendant’s original conviction and sentence in place.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant faced criminal charges after he hit the victim of his in the face with an unknown hard object. The defendant hit the acquaintance multiple times with the object, then proceeded to punch him in the face. After the incident, the victim was rushed to the hospital, where he received emergency treatment and reconstructive surgery for his injuries.

The State charged the defendant with assault in the first degree. His case went to trial, after which a group of jurors unanimously found him guilty. The court sentenced the defendant to time in prison, and he promptly appealed. The higher court issued a decision on the appeal in July 2023.

New York Court Reverses Appellate Division’s Ruling on Sufficiency of the Evidence

June 15, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent case before a New York appeals court, the State asked for a reconsideration of an appellate division’s unfavorable decision. Originally, the defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree. In January 2022, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reversed the defendant’s guilty verdict because, according to the court, there was insufficient legal evidence to support the conviction. In May 2023, however, that decision was reversed, given the higher court’s ruling that the evidence was, indeed, sufficient to show that the defendant had assaulted another individual. The case was then remanded back to the lower court for additional proceedings.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with assault in the second degree after a burglary incident in 2014. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty as charged. First, the defendant appealed on the grounds that there was not enough evidence on the record to support the conviction. The reviewing court agreed, reversing the guilty verdict.

In 2023, however, the state of New York appealed. The higher court looked again at the evidence to determine if the original reversal was correct. Particularly relevant to the court’s review was evidence that the victim in the case experienced bleeding and swelling after the burglary incident. Hospital records indicated that the victim’s pain was “aching,” and the victim testified while at the hospital that the defendant had punched him in the face on the night in question.

New York Criminal Possession of a Weapon Conviction Reversed After People Fail to Prove Stick Was a Dangerous Instrument

May 13, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent assault case before an appellate court in New York, the defendant successfully overturned several convictions related to a Child Abuse case. Although, the top charge of Assault in the First Degree stood, the case outlines some limits on criminal possession of a dangerous instrument. Originally, the defendant was convicted of several crimes, including assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, reckless assault of a child, criminal possession of a weapon, and endangering the welfare of a child. On appeal, she asked that the court reconsider these convictions. Ultimately, the court agreed that at least two of the convictions should be vacated, granting the defendant’s request in part.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with a myriad of crimes based on injuries found on her two-year-old son. The State presented evidence that the child was violently shaken, bruised, and bitten on different occasions. He also sustained several brain injuries because of the shaking, and the State included medical reports as part of the evidence against the defendant.

At trial, the defendant admitted that she occasionally hit the child, pinched his skin, and bit him and punished him with a “bamboo stick”. She was later found guilty and was sentenced to time in prison as a result.

Defendant in New York Assault Case Successfully Overturns Part of Guilty Verdict

April 28, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently, a New York appeals court published an opinion reversing a defendant’s conviction of assault in the third degree. Originally, the defendant was found guilty of three crimes, and on appeal, he argued that there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty of one of the crimes. Breaking the crime into its elements, the court ultimately reversed part of the guilty verdict, delivering a favorable result for the defendant. Thus, while the defendant’s conviction stands in part, the Court reversed his conviction for assault in the third degree.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with three crimes: burglary in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation. The charges were based on a singular incident, and the defendant’s case eventually went to trial. At trial in February 2019, the jury found the defendant guilty of all three crimes, and the defendant was sentenced accordingly. He promptly appealed, asking the higher court to overturn the verdict.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that one of the crimes, assault in the third degree, did not have enough evidentiary support to result in a guilty conviction. To be found guilty of assault, the prosecution must show that some kind of physical injury resulted from the incident in question. Prosecutors might bring in photos, video, audio, testimony from witnesses, medical records, expert medical testimony or testimony from the victim to support this element of the crime.

Defendant in New York Assault Case Unsuccessfully Argues Evidence of Victim’s Criminal History Should Have Been Admitted During Trial

April 18, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Last month, the defendant in a New York assault case challenged the constitutionality of a rule that worked against him in his 2018 jury trial. This case is a very important case about the limits of evidence of prior bad acts of the victim in self-defense cases. Originally, the defendant was charged with assault in the second degree after an altercation between him and another individual. His case went to trial, the defendant was found guilty, and he promptly appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the verdict, and the defendant challenged the order of the Appellate Division, hoping again to get his conviction reversed. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court, reviewing the defendant’s second appeal disagreed with him and sustained the guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant stabbed another individual with a penknife after the two strangers began arguing. Officers quickly arrived at the scene, and the defendant was charged with assault. When the case went to trial, the defendant argued that he was acting in self-defense. As evidence that he was not the first aggressor, the defendant tried to introduce evidence of the victim’s past criminal history which included a history of attacking strangers.

The victim’s prior criminal acts were referred to as “youthful offender adjudications,” meaning the acts happened when the victim was between the age of 16 and 19 years old. Under New York law, some of these criminal acts can be sealed so that no one can later access the records. The sealing takes place largely because the State recognizes that youth deserve the chance to start adulthood with a clean slate after their brains have fully developed.

Because these acts were sealed under the law, the trial court allowed the defendant to use them as evidence in his case for only the limited purpose of determining the victim’s credibility but not for determining whether the victim was in fact the initial aggressor. The jury ultimately found the defendant guilty, and the defendant’s series of appeals began.

Recent Appellate Case Highlights the Collateral Consequences of a Domestic Violence Arrest

March 15, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent Domestic Violence case being prosecuted in Bronx County, the defendant challenged the issuance of a Temporary Order of Protection during the pendency of his Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation (Strangulation) prosecution that prevented him from living in the home that he owned. A 2021 decision from an Appellate Court required a hearing any time that the issuance of a temporary order of protection (TOP) would cause both a significant and immediate deprivation of a substantial property or personal interest. Insistent that he could be in the house without even running into his significant other, the defendant asked the court to reverse this order. Ultimately, the court held an informal hearing without witness testimony and decided to keep the Temporary Order in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was charged with criminal obstruction of breathing and harassment after he tried to choke his wife. The State charged the defendant, and the court held a hearing to determine what should happen with the order of protection during the pendency of the case. The hearing was informal, meaning the court did not require witness testimony but rather accepted documents as evidence.