ASSAULT AND BATTERY Category Archives — Page 2 of 5 — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

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.

Defendant in New York Assault Case Unsuccessfully Argues for Reversal of Conviction

February 18, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before a New York appellate court, the defendant challenged her conviction and sentence for assault and criminal contempt. On appeal, she argued that the State had not proven that the victim of the assault had suffered a physical injury, which was a necessary element of the crime in this case. Looking at the trial court’s record, the court ultimately disagreed with the defendant and affirmed the jury’s original verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged after she was found stabbing another individual. The defendant stabbed the victim six times, and the police arrested her and took her into the station. The defendant was held in jail while she awaited trial, and eventually, the case went before a jury in late 2018. After trial, the defendant was found guilty of assault in the second degree and criminal contempt in the second degree. She promptly appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that the State had not proven every element of the crime that it needed to prove. In fact, in all criminal cases, the prosecution must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the woman correctly claimed that State had to present evidence both that the victim had suffered a physical injury and that the defendant intended to cause the physical injury. According to the defendant, the State had not proven either of those two elements.

New York Intoxication Defense – Defendant in Assault Case Successfully Argues Jury Should Have Considered Intoxication When Deciding Guilty Verdict

December 8, 2022 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent New York Criminal Assault case which was appealed to the New York Appellate Division, the defendant asked for his guilty conviction to be reversed. Originally, the defendant was found guilty of assault in the second degree after an altercation in a bar one evening. On appeal, he argued that the court should have given the jury the option of deciding that he did not have the necessary guilty intent because he was intoxicated, and his judgment was clouded by alcohol. Although, voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense in New York, Penal Law sec 15.25 makes clear that evidence of intoxication can be used to negate an element of a crime, such as intent. The court ultimately agreed with the defendant and reversed the judgment.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case walked into a bar one evening holding a bottle of Heineken beer. He interacted with other patrons of the bar, and witnesses later described his behavior as “loud, obnoxious, and argumentative.” At one point, the bartender asked the defendant if he had a designated driver.

In an unclear string of events that followed, the defendant asked another individual to step outside. At this point, the defendant allegedly assaulted the victim, and he was later charged with assault in the second degree. At trial, the jury found the defendant guilty as charged.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Aggravated Vehicular Assault Case

September 23, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently, an appellate court in New York ruled on a defendant’s appeal in a case involving assault, manslaughter, and reckless endangerment. The defendant in this case argued that the search warrant leading officers to incriminating evidence against him was invalid and that his guilty verdict should be reversed. On appeal, the court disagreed, deciding that the warrant was valid and that the officers did indeed have probable cause to search the defendant. The defendant’s appeal was ultimately denied.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving early one morning in March 2015 when he collided head-on with a tractor-trailer. Police reports indicated that the defendant had been driving in the opposite direction of traffic at 75 miles per hour and that he had consumed several alcoholic beverages before driving. Tragically, two of the passengers in the defendant’s car died from injuries sustained in the accident.

A police officer then applied for a warrant to gain access to the defendant’s blood vials that had been drawn immediately after the accident. The criminal court issued the warrant, and the officer confirmed that the defendant was intoxicated while operating his vehicle.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in New York Criminal Assault Case, Rejecting Defendant’s Claim That He Lacked Requisite Criminal Intent

August 29, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent New York criminal assault case, the defendant unsuccessfully appealed his conviction of assault in the first degree. In the appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt by legally sufficient evidence because his intoxicated state when the crime was committed rendered him incapable of forming the requisite criminal intent. The appeals court denied his case, finding his claim unpreserved for appellate review. Further, the appeals court found that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant manifested the requisite criminal intent. Finally, the appeals court was satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence. Generally, voluntary intoxication, either by some drug or alcohol, is not a defense to a criminal prosecution except to the extent that it negates the required culpable mental state to commit the crime.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was involved in an altercation while intoxicated and was subsequently taken into custody by the police. The defendant raised several arguments on appeal. The defendant argued primarily that due to his intoxicated state when the crime was committed, he was incapable of forming the requisite criminal intent. The defendant also contended that the lower court erred in excluding a hearsay statement made to the police after the defendant was taken into custody. Further, the defendant claimed that beyond the hearsay issues, the lower court’s evidentiary ruling deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense. Finally, the defendant argued that he was deprived of his federal or state constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.