New York Criminal Attorney Blog

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 Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Burglary Case, Despite Questionable Use of Security Footage

August 6, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a July 2023 burglary case before the Appellate Division, Second Department in New York, the defendant highlighted possible issues in identifying a suspect through surveillance footage. This case involved a defendant who was charged with and eventually convicted of Burglary in the Second Degree. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing in part that the trial court made a mistake when it allowed non-eyewitnesses to identify him in a home surveillance video as the person who had committed the burglary. Looking at the trial court’s record, the higher court denied the defendant’s appeal.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant broke into a home one evening when the residents were out. He stole several items, all of which he brought back to his bedroom, which was located in a group home for mentally ill adults. The house’s residents had high-tech home surveillance footage, which they shared with the police after the burglary.

The investigators reviewed the footage, and eventually, several of the defendant’s parole officers identified the defendant as the person who committed the robbery. The State charged the defendant with burglary, grand larceny, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, petit larceny, and criminal mischief. His case went to trial, and a jury unanimously found him guilty. The court then sentenced him to time in prison as a result.

Appellate Division Reverses Lower Court’s Judgment in NY Robbery and Criminal Possession Case, Highlighting the Importance of Unbiased Courts

July 30, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a June 2023 case before the Appellate Division, Second Department in New York, the defendant successfully argued for a reversal of his conviction of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. Originally, a jury found the defendant guilty after an incident during which he took several pairs of footwear from a department store. On appeal, he argued that the lower court deprived him of his constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial. Looking at the record, the higher court agreed with the defendant and granted him an entirely new trial.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant walked in and out of a department store one afternoon in August 2018. When he walked out, the storm alarm started blaring, and a store security guard noticed that he had taken several pairs of footwear with him.

The security guard followed the defendant and tried to retrieve the stolen goods. The defendant reached for his back pocket and said, “Keep going or watch what’s going to happen to you.” The guard let the defendant go, but he summoned police officers to the scene. The officers arrested the defendant several minutes later, close to a subway station, and the defendant was criminally charged.

Defendant in NY Sex Offender Registration Case Unsuccessfully Asks for Reconsideration of Risk Level

July 22, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case coming out of an appellate court in New York, the defendant’s request for a new analysis under the Sex Offender Registration Act was denied. The defendant took issue with the trial court’s decision regarding his “risk level” after he was originally found guilty of possessing child pornography. Asking for a lower risk level on the sex offender registry, the defendant argued there was not enough evidence to support the high risk level the lower court had assigned him. Reviewing the case and ultimately disagreeing with the defendant’s argument, the higher court denied his appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with possession of child pornography several years ago, in 2014. He pled guilty and was sentenced accordingly. When an individual in New York is classified as a “sex offender” by the court, that person must register on the sex offender registry to notify the public of his or her risk level. Once the individual is sentenced, or if incarcerated before the individual’s release, a court must hold an evidentiary hearing to decide what the person’s assigned risk level will be. One is the lowest risk level, and three is the highest.

In this case, the court designated the defendant as a level two sex offender, meaning it thought he posed a moderate risk to the community. The defendant appealed, arguing he should have been classified as a level one instead of as a level two.

New York Court Affirms Defendant’s Conviction in Murder Case, Despite Multiple Arguments for Reversal

July 15, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before an appellate court in New York, the defendant presented multiple arguments in an attempt to reverse his conviction for murder in the second degree. Ultimately, the court decided that because the evidence was legally sufficient to support the guilty verdict, the defendant’s appeal should be denied. The court also affirmed the lower court’s decision regarding the defendant’s sentence, and he will remain incarcerated as a result.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with murder after officers found the victim dead from a knife wound. Apparently, the defendant held unto the knife until the victim fell to the ground, then had stabbed him with the knife.

The defendant pled not guilty, and his case proceeded to trial. Despite his attorney’s best efforts, though, the jury unanimously found the defendant guilty on September 12, 2018. The defendant appealed, and it took his case several years to work its way through the appeals system. Finally, almost five years later, the higher court issued this decision.

Defendant in New York Sex Offender Case Successfully Argues for Reversal of Trial Court’s Decision

July 8, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently, a New York defendant successfully argued to reverse the lower court’s classification of his sex offender registration risk level in a sex offender case. The defendant was charged with and convicted of engaging in forcible sexual intercourse in 2012, and when he was eventually released from prison, the State suggested a risk level to put on the defendant’s sex offender registry. After the lower court accepted the State’s recommendation, the defendant appealed, and the higher court reversed the original decision. Generally, before a sex offender is released from incarceration an evidentiary hearing is held to determine the appropriate risk level and therefore the terms of the offender’s registration.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant engaged in forced sexual intercourse with a child when he was 19 years old. He spent five years in prison, and he registered for the sex offender registry when he was released. As part of that registry, the defendant knew the court would assign him a “risk level,” which would indicate to anyone looking him up on the registry how dangerous the court thought he might be.

The State suggested a risk level of 3 (the highest possible level) for the defendant, but the defendant thought his level should be lower than the State’s suggestion. During a hearing on the defendant’s risk level, the court granted the State’s request and assigned the defendant the number 3 on the sex offender registry. The defendant appealed.

New York Defendant Successfully Appeals Lower Court’s Decision in Stop and Frisk Case

June 29, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent New York drug offense case subject to appellate review in the state of New York, the defendant challenged the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant was originally stopped by a police officer after the officer saw him exit his vehicle and pull up his pants. Arguing the officer did not have legal grounds to stop him, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the drugs that the officer eventually found on his person. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant promptly appealed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was sitting in his car one evening when an officer on patrol stopped behind his car to observe. The officer saw the defendant move from the driver’s seat to the passenger’s seat. He then saw the defendant exit the vehicle and pull up his pants as he walked out.

The officer approached the defendant and, after a brief exchange, patted him down. At that point, the officer found marijuana and heroin on the defendant’s person. He was criminally charged, and he quickly filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the drugs. Once that motion was denied, the defendant appealed.

New York Court Upholds Defendant’s Contempt Conviction, Despite Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Argument

June 22, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent case before a New York court, the defendant argued that his defense attorney was ineffective in representing him at the trial level. Originally, he was found guilty of both criminal contempt and committing an aggravated family offense, but the defendant thought he was entitled to receive an entirely new trial because of his attorney’s mistake. After reviewing the defendant’s argument, the higher court dismissed the aggravated family offense count but ultimately upheld the conviction for criminal contempt.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant went into his former girlfriend’s apartment one day in 2016 when there was an active stay-away order that legally prohibited him from being in her presence. While he was there, the defendant put his hands around his ex-girlfriend’s neck and stole her ID cards. The ex-girlfriend called the police, and the officers arrested the defendant immediately.

He was subsequently charged with criminal contempt because he had violated the stay-away order that was in effect. He was also charged with committing a family offense, which means that he committed a violent act against a relative or person with whom he had an “intimate relationship.” The defendant was found guilty, and he promptly appealed.

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 Defendant Successfully Moves for New Trial in Second-Degree Murder Case

June 7, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent Murder case coming before the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, the defendant asked for a new trial because the trial court judge had closed the courtroom during the middle of his eight-day jury trial. Under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, defendants are entitled to public trials, and according to the defendant, the trial court deprived him of this fundamental right to a public trial. Looking at the evidence in the record, the higher court agreed with the defendant and ended up granting him a new trial.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was criminally charged with second-degree murder. His case went to trial, and the State asked the judge to close the courtroom a few days into the eight-day trial. During a conversation between the attorneys and the judge, the judge noted that several individuals in the courtroom had been “very intimidating,” had inappropriately taken photos during the proceedings, and had posted these photos on social media.

The defendant’s attorney asked if the court would consider banning cell phones instead of excluding the public from the trial, but the judge decided to proceed with closing the courtroom. The defendant’s trial proceeded in private, and the jury later found him guilty as charged. The defendant was then sentenced accordingly.