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.
The defendant made several arguments on appeal, one of which was that the court should not have allowed a witness to testify regarding previous statements made by the defendant. On the stand, this witness testified that the defendant had admitted in the past to punching the victim in her stomach. According to the defendant, this testimony was not relevant to the crime that was being investigated. What’s more, the testimony would have unfairly prejudiced the jury and made them more likely to decide he was guilty based on insufficient information.
Considering this argument, the court disagreed with the defendant and ultimately affirmed the guilty verdict. It was true, said the court, that testimony regarding the defendant’s prior statements was not necessarily related to the crime in question. It was also true, however, that the testimony was related to the defendant’s possible motivation or intent to kill the victim. Because the jury needed as much information as possible in order to make a decision as to whether the defendant did, in fact, have an intent to kill the victim, this testimony was helpful and not unnecessarily prejudicial.
The court reviewed the rest of the defendant’s arguments and decided they were without merit. Based on these conclusions, the court affirmed the verdict and proclaimed that the defendant’s sentence was not unduly severe.
Are You Facing Criminal Charges in the State of New York?
If you have been charged with homicide in New York and you are interested in finding a lawyer who will fight the government’s case from every angle, contact our team at Tilem & Associates. We are committed to offering you personalized solutions and aggressive representation so that you have the best possible chance at defending your rights. For your free consultation, give us a call at 877-377-8666.