In a recent New York criminal case, the New York Appellate Division affirmed the trial court decision, finding that the court had properly denied the defendant’s omnibus motion to suppress statements. Further, the appellate court denied the defendant’s claims that the lower court acted with improvidence by allowing the State to recall an expert, that evidence introduced by the State improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy, and that the sentence imposed was excessive. The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree by jury verdict.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, the defendant was convicted by a jury in the County Court of Westchester County on October 3, 2019, for murder in the second degree. The defendant’s appeal brought for review the denial, after a hearing, of the part of the defendant’s omnibus motion, which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. The defendant was convicted in part based on statements he made to the police while in custody, as well as medical evidence. Those statements to law enforcement officers came after he was arrested and advised of his Miranda rights.
On appeal, the defendant made several claims, including filing an omnibus motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials, claiming that it was an improvident exercise of the County Court’s discretion to permit the prosecution to recall their expert witness to address an issue raised during cross-examination of a police officer, claiming that a 20-second “love you video” from the mother to the deceased child victim improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy, and a claim that the sentence imposed was excessive.
Regarding the motion to suppress statements, the appeals court found that based on the factors to be weighed, including the duration and conditions of detention, the manifest attitude of the police towards the defendant, the existence of threat or inducement, and the age, physical state, and mental state of the defendant, the defendant’s statements were made voluntarily in this case. On the issue of the prosecution recalling an expert witness to address issues raised during cross-examination, the appeals court held that such an action was permitted as the prosecution had not rested at the time the witness was recalled. Additionally, the appeals court held that the claim that the 20-second video introduced as evidence improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy was unpreserved for appellate review, but was material regardless. Finally, the appellate court found that the sentence imposed was not excessive. The appellate court fully affirmed the lower court decision.
Have You Been Charged with a Crime in New York?
If you are facing criminal charges for a New York violent crime, call our office at Tilem & Associates. Having an experienced team of lawyers on your side can make all the difference. Our dedicated team of attorneys is full of knowledgeable, aggressive, and successful litigators, and we have proudly protected the rights of individuals for over 25 years. Let us bring our expertise to every step of your case. For a free, no-obligation and confidential consultation, call us at 877-377-8666.