Violent Crimes Category Archives — Page 3 of 4 — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

New York Court Agrees to Suppress Incriminating Evidence in Murder Case

March 26, 2022 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent murder case coming out of a New York court, the defendant was partially successful in his appeal. Originally, the defendant was convicted of several crimes, including murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, and attempted robbery in the first degree. On appeal, the defendant made many arguments, one of which was that incriminating evidence coming from his clothing should have been suppressed at trial. The court agreed with the defendant, ruling that the court should have suppressed the DNA evidence coming from his clothing.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, one evening in 2014, three men with masks forced themselves into an apartment and began shooting at the apartment’s residents. One of the residents was killed, and the three suspects promptly fled the scene.

The same evening, the defendant in this case was admitted to the emergency room with a gunshot wound in his leg. When an officer came to question him about the wound, the defendant said he needed to rest and would answer more questions at a later time. The officer left the room, taking a bag of the defendant’s clothing without permission as he left.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Recent Murder Case

February 28, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent case coming out of a New York court, the defendant’s appeal of his murder conviction was denied. In 2017, the defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, aggravated criminal contempt, criminal contempt in the first degree, and assault in the third degree. Taking issue with his guilty verdict, the defendant appealed; however, the court rejected the defendant’s argument and affirmed his original convictions.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant and the victim were alone together in an apartment one evening. The pair were arguing at the time of the victim’s death, leading the jury to later infer that the defendant had some kind of motive to hurt the victim. After the death, a medical examiner conducted an autopsy on the victim’s body. That examiner discovered that the victim died from hemorrhages in her skull caused by blows to the head. She also had hemorrhages in her larynx, which would have been due to some kind of external compression. Additionally, the autopsy revealed that the victim had experienced fatal damage to her liver, which could have only come from blunt force trauma.

Reviewing this report from the medical examiner along with other evidence presented at trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of murdering the victim.

Court Addresses Reliability of Citizen Informant in New York Murder Case

March 18, 2021 | Peter Howard Tilem

An appellate court recently issued an opinion in a defendant’s appeal of his New York murder conviction. At the core of the defendant’s appeal is whether the officers who took him into custody had probable cause to arrest him. Before the police officers took the defendant into custody, they interviewed several witnesses, including two accomplices. The witnesses stated that the defendant killed the victim. One of the witnesses stated that they overheard a call the defendant made to another person during the murder. The witness recounted that during the call, the defendant stated that he was killing the victim by strangulation. The witness further explained that he overheard the defendant state that the victim was bleeding but not dying. The defendant motioned to suppress the informant’s statements, and the court conducted a combined Huntley and Dunaway hearing.

In New York, defendants may argue various motions when they believe that police did not abide by the proper procedures to get evidence in the case. Among the most common examples of motion to suppress hearings are Huntley and Dunaway hearings. Huntley hearings are proceedings to determine the admissibility of a defendant’s statement. During these proceedings, a criminal defendant’s attorney may argue that the defendant’s statements were made against their will due to pressure, threats, trickery, or without Miranda warnings. A Dunaway hearing is a motion to suppress evidence that authorities obtained from an illegal arrest or detention.

Arrests and detentions can stem from many different situations; in some cases, an officer witnesses a crime, and in other situations, someone reports the incident. The reporting individual may be a citizen informant, an anonymous tipster or an accomplice. Citizen informants are those that provide information and their identity, which constitutes the basis for probable cause. An anonymous tipster provides information about a crime but not information about themselves. Courts generally favor testimony from a citizen informant compared to that of an anonymous tipster. Anonymous informant’s tips often need substantiation and are often regarded as less reliable. Tips from accomplices who are informing to curry favor with the prosecutor may similarly require corroboration.

New York Court Discusses the Elements of “Attempt” in Recent Attempted Murder Case

December 6, 2020 | Tilem & Associates

Last month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York attempted murder case, requiring the court to discuss the elements of an “attempt.” The court ultimately found that the defendant’s actions did not constitute an attempt, and vacated his conviction.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was incarcerated for alleged acts of domestic violence. While in jail, the defendant approached a fellow inmate who was going to be released soon. The defendant asked the inmate to kill his wife and mother-in-law. In exchange for this, the defendant promised to give him a home.

The inmate had no intention of carrying out the defendant’s request, but played along. He told the defendant that he could do it, and gave the defendant a phone number to reach him after his release. The defendant provided detailed instructions on how he wanted the inmate to kill his wife and mother-in-law.

New York Appellate Court Upholds Murder Conviction Over Defendant’s Challenge to Admission of His Statement

November 24, 2020 | Tilem & Associates

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York homicide case involving a defendant’s appeal of his conviction. The defendant appealed the lower court’s decision to admit his statement to police in the moments after the murder. However, the appellate court found that there was no error in admitting the statement. The court further explained that, if there was any error in admitting the statement, doing so was harmless.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant was alleged to have killed another man, whom he met out on the street around 2 a.m. According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was drinking beer with friends. Throughout the evening, the defendant expressed some violent thoughts, and discussed his gang membership.

Court Affirms New York Manslaughter Conviction After Finding Defendant’s DNA Was Not Illegally Seized

November 14, 2020 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York manslaughter case, affirming the defendant’s conviction after dismissing his challenge to the way in which the prosecution obtained a sample of his DNA. In so doing, the court explained how law enforcement officials can legally obtain DNA evidence from a suspect who has yet to be charged with a crime.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, four men belonging to the gang, Young Gunnaz, drove a Gold Nissan into a rival gang’s territory. The person in the car’s passenger seat exited the vehicle and shot and killed a 16-year-old. The incident was caught by a surveillance camera, but no identification could be made from the footage.

Law enforcement tracked down the owner of the Gold Nissan, who became a cooperating witness. He identified the defendant as the shooter, and explained that, after the shooting, the men went back to their apartment building. The driver allowed the police to take a DNA sample from the car’s front passenger seat area.

New York Appellate Court Rejects Defendants Motion to Suppress Identification Made by the Complaining Witness

August 26, 2020 | Peter Howard Tilem

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York attempted murder case stemming from a shooting outside an apartment complex. The court’s opinion discussed, among other issues, the defendant’s motion to suppress the identification of the defendant made by the complaining witness. Ultimately, the court concluded that, although there may have been issues with the witnesses’ identification of the defendant, because the witness knew the defendant from before the incident, the defendant’s constitutional rights were not adversely impacted.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a man was shot outside his apartment complex on September 18, 2011. While at the hospital, the man told detectives that the person who shot him was known as “Chulo.” On two separate occasions, the witness identified the defendant from a single-photo, presented to him by a detective. Two years later, after the defendant’s arrest, the complaining witness identified the defendant again, this time in a double-blind sequential lineup.

Initially, the defendant challenged the procedures used during the double-blind lineup as suggestive. However, the court denied the defendant’s motion. Afterward, the defendant expanded his challenge to include the two previous identifications where the witness was only shown a single photograph. The trial court denied the defendant’s request, relying on the prosecution’s assurance that the witness knew the defendant. In response, the defendant requested a Rodriguez hearing, which involves questioning the witness outside the presence of the jury regarding his familiarity with the defendant. The judge denied the defendant’s request for a Rodriguez hearing, and a jury convicted the defendant, who then appealed.

Court Reverses Defendant’s New York Murder Conviction, Holding Trial Court Failed to Follow Procedure When Replacing a Juror

July 22, 2020 | Tilem & Associates

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York murder case involving the defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s substitution of a member of the jury. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the court failed to follow the proper procedure when determining the sitting juror’s unavailability.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant called 911 stating that he shot his brother. The defendant’s brother later died from his injuries, and the defendant was charged with murder and related charges.

The case proceeded to trial, and on the ninth day of trial, one of the jurors was absent. The juror explained that she had an important medical appointment for a family member. The court did not officially conduct a hearing into the juror’s absence and, without formally stating that the court was ordering the substitution, the court proceeded with an alternate juror. The court explained that it believed the juror mentioned the appointment during jury selection, however, that turned out not to be the case.

How New York Courts Apply the State’s Self-Defense Doctrine

February 13, 2020 | Peter Howard Tilem

When the government brings criminal charges against a defendant, that person may have one or more defenses against the crimes charged. In the case of a New York assault crime or assault related charges, one of the most common defenses is self-defense which in New York is the defense of justification. Self defense may also apply to many Murder or Manslaughter charges.

In New York, self-defense is a defense. In New York if a defense is raised the prosecutor has the obligation to disprove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Justification, or self-defense is a type of defense in which a defendant claims he committed the acts that would otherwise constitute the offense, but he should not be found in violation of the statute for some other reason. In the case of self-defense, the defendant claims he committed the charged acts for a justifiable reason – specifically, that he was justified in defending himself or a third person.

The defense of self-defense is discussed in Article 35 of the New York Laws. For example, under section 35.10, the use of force upon someone else which might otherwise make out a crime or offense is justifiable and not criminal if the person uses “physical force upon another person in self-defense or defense of a third person.”

Supreme Court Hears Case that May Affect People with Several New York Convictions

February 2, 2020 | Tilem & Associates

Under the Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA), federal law provides for enhanced penalties for people convicted of a crime involving a firearm if they have previously been convicted of several “violent felonies.” New York has similar laws that enhance penalties for persistent violent felony offenders and discretionary persistent felony offenders. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case in which the court will be required to explain what constitutes a “violent felony” under the ACCA. The case is important to New York criminal defendants because it will define what counts as a predicate offense under the ACCA, which could have significant repercussions for a person’s sentence.

The case involves a defendant who was convicted for possession of ammunition. At sentencing, the prosecution presented evidence that the defendant had previously been convicted of five offenses: a 1974 robbery, a 1982 robbery, a 1983 attempted burglary, a 1986 burglary, and a 1994 robbery. The prosecution argued that each of the previous offenses qualified as violent felonies under the ACCA, and it sought a mandatory sentence on the current case of at least 15 years. If the defendant did not have three qualifying offenses, the maximum sentence that he could receive would have been 10 years. However, the trial court agreed with the prosecution, sentencing the defendant to 15 years.

After the U.S. Supreme Court held that part of the ACCA was unconstitutional, the defendant filed a petition, claiming that several of his previous convictions no longer qualified as “violent felonies.” The prosecution agreed that the 1983 conviction for attempted burglary was no longer a qualifying offense, but it argued that the remaining convictions still qualified under the ACCA. The court disagreed, finding that only two of the defendant’s robbery convictions qualified, and it sentenced him to 88 months.