Violent Crimes Category Archives — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

What Happens When Your Criminal Case Goes Through Multiple Appeals?

July 18, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

If you receive an unfavorable jury verdict in a criminal trial, the good news is that you can appeal that verdict. Sometimes, though, even if the higher court grants your appeal, the State might appeal again, subjecting you to additional waiting and uncertainty. A recent case before the New York Court of Appeals serves as an example of this process, and in this case, even though the defendant got a favorable decision on his first appeal, he got an unfavorable decision from the second appeal when the court decided the prosecution’s error in his trial was ultimately “harmless.”

Originally, the defendant in this case was charged with first-degree assault and attempted murder. The defendant pled not guilty, his case went to trial, and a jury found him guilty of the assault. On appeal, though, the defendant argued that it was unfair for a police officer to testify regarding the victim’s daughter’s statements about the attack. Because the officer testified about the daughter’s statements, the defendant argued he was deprived of his right to cross-examine the daughter about what she said.

The Appellate Division agreed that this testimony was a violation of the defendant’s rights. It granted the defendant’s request and gave him an entirely new trial. The State appealed again, and the New York Court of Appeals then had to decide whether it was correct for the defendant to be given this new trial.

Emotional Disturbance as an Affirmative Defense in New York Criminal Cases

May 28, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

When a defendant is charged with committing a violent crime in the state of New York, there are various affirmative defenses he can raise in hopes of reducing both his conviction and the resulting sentence. In a recent criminal case before an appellate court in New York, the defendant successfully asked the court to reduce his murder conviction based on the argument that he acted “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance.” The facts of the case serve as a reminder that this defense applies only in rare circumstances, but that when it does apply, it can serve as a powerful tool in otherwise difficult cases.

The Standard

To successfully argue the affirmative defense of emotional disturbance, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence (1) that he suffered “extreme” emotional disturbance and (2) that there was a reasonable explanation for the emotional disturbance. The first element focuses on the defendant’s mental state, while the second focuses on how the defendant viewed his circumstances at the time of the offense. The affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance is different than a psychiatric defense.

April 2024 Case

In the case recently decided by the New York court, the defendant originally argued during trial that he murdered a fellow patient at a medical center because of emotional disturbance. The jury found that this was not a reasonable defense, and it found him guilty.

Limits on “Voluntary” Nature of Confessions in New York Criminal Courts

May 15, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

During interrogation, New York detectives and officers are only legally able to obtain statements from defendants that are made voluntarily. If a detective coerces a defendant, or if the defendant does not understand what he or she is being interrogated about, a court may later rule that any confession was involuntarily and thus invalid. A recent case coming out of the Appellate Division, Third Department, shows some of the limits on this law and serves as a reminder of the importance of experienced, qualified counsel in criminal cases.

The Ruling

In the court’s ruling, it first reiterated the law that when prosecuting a criminal case, the State bears the burden of showing that a defendant’s statements during interrogation were voluntary. The State must therefore show that the defendant’s statements were “not products of coercion, either physical or psychological.”

In the case before the court, a defendant was being interrogated about a recent murder. During the interrogation, the defendant asked the questioning officer for medical attention, and the officer refused. Later on in the conversation, the defendant confessed to being involved in the murder, and he ended up pleading guilty to manslaughter in the first degree. Before pleading guilty, however, he filed a motion to suppress the confession, which the trial court denied.

New York Court Concludes that Prosecution Failed to Meet Burden in Violent Crimes Case

April 18, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court the defendant asked the court to affirm a lower court’s ruling, which concluded that the prosecution failed to meet its burden during the trial of his criminal case. The case in question involved a brutal murder, and even though the evidence showed that the defendant killed the victim in the case, he argued that the prosecution did not prove every element that the relevant statute required it to prove. On appeal, the court agreed, ultimately affirming the ruling that vacated one count of the defendant’s indictment.

Facts and Procedural History

The opinion lays out the facts of the case: one day in 2018, members of two New York gangs were engaged in a physical fight when they came across a teenager that they believed to be part of one of the gangs. The opposing gang members chased the teenager down, dragging him across the street and stabbing him in the process. The defendant in this case ultimately stabbed the victim, and he bled out and then died shortly thereafter.
The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was convicted of first-degree murder. He appealed, and the Appellate Division vacated the first-degree murder conviction. According to the higher court, the evidence was not sufficient to show that the defendant was guilty of first-degree murder. The State appealed this order, and the New York Court of Appeals issued an opinion regarding the State’s appeal.

The Court’s Decision

On appeal, the court reviewed the evidence and decided that the prosecution failed to establish at least one element of the case during trial. According to the first-degree murder statute in question, the prosecution was supposed to show that the defendant showed “a sense of pleasure” in injuring the victim. And, according to the court, the prosecution had not presented evidence to demonstrate this sense of pleasure.

New York Court Uses Defendant’s Actions to Infer Intent to Kill in Violent Crimes Case

March 23, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, the defendant appealed his convictions of attempted murder, attempted assault, robbery, burglary, and criminal possession of a weapon. Part of the defendant’s argument regarding the “attempted murder” offense was that the facts of the case did not support the jury’s finding of guilt, and the verdict should therefore be reversed. Reviewing the record, the higher court disagreed and ultimately affirmed the lower court’s verdict, emphasizing that the defendant’s actions throughout his physical altercation with the victim led to a reasonable inference that he intended to kill the victim.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant’s argument centered around the fact that during the incident in question, he and the victim both fought in the hallway of a motel while one of them was holding a gun. Shots were fired, and the victim was shot during the parties’ struggle for the gun. There was not enough evidence, maintained the defendant, to prove that he attempted to kill the victim – the evidence only showed that the victim’s injuries were the result of a chaotic fight that involved a loaded gun. Without reason to assume that he intended to kill the victim, there was no basis for the “attempted murder” conviction. The defendant therefore asked the higher court to reverse the lower court’s ruling.

Basis for Appellate Court’s Ruling

The appellate court disagreed. According to important New York case law, it is possible to infer intent to kill from the defendant’s actions. Here, the victim testified that the defendant shot directly at him while they were fighting, as well as that the defendant placed the gun directly on his body before shooting. Other witnesses affirmed this testimony. These actions directly supported the inference that the defendant intended to kill the victim.
Additionally, the victim’s injuries showed a gunshot wound, lacerations above the eyebrow, and abrasions to other parts of the body. These injuries were consistent with the victim’s testimony about where and how the defendant shot him. Given that the physical evidence, in addition to the testimony, supported the inference that the defendant wanted to kill the victim, it was reasonable for the jury to have found the defendant guilty.
Ultimately, then, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, and the defendant’s convictions stayed in place.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Case Revolving Around Aggravated Family Offense

February 23, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent case before the Appellate Division, Fourth Department in New York, the defendant took issue with the trial court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial. In his appeal, the defendant argued that the lower court made a prejudicial decision in denying his motion, and the decision should therefore be reconsidered. The higher court reviewed the defendant’s argument and ultimately disagreed; the court did, however, decide that the trial court unfairly sentenced the defendant, and it lowered the defendant’s overall sentence as a result.

Background of the Case

The defendant was convicted of four counts of aggravated family offense, meaning a jury found that he violated a no-contact order that was in place in favor of the mother of the defendant’s children. After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the defendant filed a motion for a mistrial, arguing that part of the admitted testimony was inappropriate and prejudicial.

During the proceedings, the individual that had obtained the no-contact order against the defendant (called the “complainant”) testified on the stand about how the defendant had strangled her in front of their children. The defendant objected on the grounds that this was improper testimony. The trial court judge agreed, and while the opinion did not describe why this testimony was improper, both the defendant and the trial court’s judge agreed that it was inadmissible. Having that the testimony was not helpful for the jury in deciding whether to find the defendant guilty, the judge instructed the jury to disregard the testimony from the complainant.
The basis of the defendant’s motion, then, was that the judge did not do enough to fix the problem that the jury heard this prejudicial testimony, and that the jury was therefore biased against him.

New York Criminal Case Emphasizes High Bar for Overly Prejudicial Evidence at Trial

February 16, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before the Appellate Division, Third Department in New York, the defendant appealed his convictions of aggravated family offense and criminal contempt in the second degree. The convictions were based on an incident during which the defendant violated a protective order in place against him and toward the victim in this case. The defendant pled not guilty, his case went to trial, and he appealed on the grounds that the trial court unreasonably let prejudicial evidence into the record during the proceedings. In its decision denying the appeal, the court highlighted the fact that even if the evidence was improper or prejudicial in some regard, it needed to rise to a higher level of prejudice to warrant the court’s granting the defendant’s appeal.

Underlying Facts and Trial Proceedings

This case arose when the defendant reached out to the victim in this case, despite there being a protective order in place prohibiting him from communicating with her by text, email, mail, or any other means. The defendant was criminally charged, and his case went to trial once he pled not guilty. During trial, the jury heard evidence both about the offense and about one of the defendant’s prior convictions. There was also evidence about the protection order itself, which the defendant violated when he was incarcerated by using a messaging service developed specifically for incarcerated individuals.

The jury found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to between 7 and 15 years in prison. He promptly appealed the decision.

New York Defendant Loses Appeal in Case Centering on Possible Issue with In-Court Identification

January 16, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent assault and criminal possession of a weapon case before New York’s highest Court, the New York Court of Appeals, the defendant took issue with the trial court’s decision to let a witness identify him as the perpetrator of a shooting for the first time while she was in court. In its opinion, the court discussed the implications of letting a witness make this kind of identification without significant notice to the defendant. Here, concluded the court, the defendant had sufficient notice of the possible identification, and his conviction would be affirmed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant shot the victim in the leg at a party in 2017. A neighbor called 911 to make a report, and when calling, the neighbor described the shooter’s race, stature, and clothing. The police subsequently arrested the defendant and the case went to trial.

During trial, the victim took the stand and testified that the defendant was, indeed, the person that shot her. According to her testimony, there was enough light outside of the house to allow her to clearly see the defendant, and she was sure that the defendant and her shooter were the same person. The defendant objected to this testimony on the grounds that the witness had not participated in any identification procedures prior to the trial, and that her identification thus took him by surprise.

The jury later returned a guilty verdict, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The defendant again appealed.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Murder Case, Ruling that Lineup was Not Overly Suggestive

December 16, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a November 2023 case before an appellate court in New York, the defendant appealed his convictions of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court made a mistake in refusing to suppress identification evidence that led to his conviction. The higher court considered the defendant’s argument, reviewed relevant case law, and ultimately affirmed the defendant’s original convictions.

Facts of the Case

The defendant was originally charged after he fatally shot a 21-year-old man outside of a billiards hall. According to the appellate opinion, witnesses saw the defendant run up to the victim outside of the billiards hall at approximately 1:00 in the morning, shoot twice, and immediately run away. Emergency responders took the victim to the hospital, but he ultimately died of his injuries.

As part of their investigation, police officers brought witnesses into the station for an identification lineup. The witnesses consistently picked out the defendant, and the State charged him with murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. He pled not guilty, and the case went to trial. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and the lower court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison.

New York Defendant in Second Degree Murder Case Gets New Trial Based on Improper Questioning by Police Officers

December 2, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In an October 2023 Murder case before the Appellate Division, First Department, the defendant argued that several of his incriminating statements to police officers should have been suppressed by the lower court. The defendant was originally convicted of murder in the second degree, and the lower court sentenced him to a term of 25 years to life in prison. On appeal, the defendant took issue with the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress his statements. The higher court weighed the evidence and ended up agreeing with the defendant, remanding the case for an entirely new trial.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers responded to a 911 call on the evening in question at the defendant’s home. The defendant himself made the call, reporting that an unknown person had invaded their home and killed his wife. Both the defendant and his wife were taken to the hospital, then, after the defendant’s wife died, the defendant was brought into the station for questioning.

Officers gave the defendant Miranda warnings and proceeded to ask him questions about the incident. At first, the defendant stuck with his story, that an unknown intruder had stabbed his wife. Then, however, the officers told the defendant that he was not being arrested and that the statements would “not necessarily” be used against him. At that point, the defendant admitted to being the one to kill his wife.