Articles Posted in Murder

In this case the Court of Appeals considered whether the defendant in a murder case was entitled to a new trial due to the prosecution failing to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence.

The events that eventually lead to the defendant being arrested began in March 2008. The victim was shot and killed in front of an apartment building. There were several eyewitnesses who either identified the defendant as the shooter or saw the defendant at the scene at the time of the murder. The defendant was eventually arrested and tried.  While several witnesses testified that the defendant was at the scene, on cross examination, the witness statements were not consistent.  In fact, one witnesses testimony contradicted that of another witness named Cream. Cream was also a childhood friend of both the defendant and the victim. Cream was a key witness against the defendant at the trial. However, he fled he scene without talking to the police. He only came forward 10 months later in an effort to make a deal on pending unrelated criminal charges that he was facing. Cream testified that he was standing with the victim when the defendant walked up, argued with the victim, and then shot him. The defendant was convicted of murder.

At the trial the prosecution stated that there was no video of the incident. It turns out that there was indeed a video and the prosecutor had it at the time of the trial. However, the District Attorney’s Office did not turn it over to the defendant until years after the verdict.  The video showed images of those near the victim when he was shot but did not clearly show who shot the victim.

In a criminal trial, a harmless error occurs when the trial court judge makes a mistake, but the mistake was not such that it impacted the outcome of the case.  When there is a finding of harmless error, the appeals court will not reverse the decision based on that mistake.  In this case, the Appellate Division examined whether the trial court erred in admitting low copy number (LCN) DNA evidence without first holding a Frye hearing.

In People v. Williams, months after fleeing from the scene where a young man was shot 4 times and killed, the defendant was arrested and charged with murder. There was testimony that the defendant shot the victim and then hid the gun in a former girlfriend’s apartment. The gun was recovered from a covered wall cavity in the apartment.

At trial the former girlfriend testified that the defendant forced her to hide the gun in her apartment and that he admitted to her that he had just shot someone. In addition, there was eyewitness testimony that the defendant was the shooter. The prosecution also presented DNA evidence purported to link the defendant to the gun. However, the DNA testing showed DNA on the gun from two unknown people. Initially, the medical examiner’s office was not able to link the defendant’s DNA to the DNA that was found on the gun.  The prosecution produced a witness who used LCN testing, a different form of DNA testing that was more “sensitive” than traditional DNA testing. The witness testified that the LCN testing along with a proprietary “calculator” concluded that it was likely that the DNA mixture found on the gun was from the defendant and from one other unknown person.

Defendant Walker was indicted for several felonies including murder in the second degree (felony murder) (N.Y. Pen. Law §  125.25[3] ), two counts of kidnapping in the second degree (N.Y. Pen. Law §  135.20), robbery in the first degree (N.Y. Pen. Law §  160.15[2] ), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (N.Y. Pen. Law §  265.03[1] ), and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (N.Y. Pen. Law §  265.02[1], [4]).  He was ultimately convicted of several crimes including felony murder. As part of his defense, he claimed justification.  However, the trial judge disallowed the defense of justification. On appeal, Walker argues that he should have been allowed to argue justification.

Justification, also referred to as self-defense, is an oft used defense to criminal charges such as murder and assault.  It an affirmative defense governed by N.Y. Pen. Law §  35.15.  The law allows a person to use physical force against another if he possesses an honest and reasonable belief that he is facing unlawful physical force or an imminent threat of unlawful physical force.  In the absence of an honest and reasonable belief of that he is facing unlawful force or a threat, the use of such physical force would be a crime.

While it is well-established that a person has the legal right to use physical force that would otherwise amount to murder or assault, the question in his case is whether a person has the right to use physical force that would otherwise amount to felony murder.

People v. W.

2018 Slip Op 05950

Aug. 29, 2018

People v. J

2018 NY Slip Op 05692

August 8, 2018

A man filed an action to dismiss the charge of murder against him. He subsequently indicted in the State of Maryland, along with his colleague, on the allegation that he conspired with them to the murder of the victim. But, the man was acquitted of the conspiracy charge upon a jury verdict. The narrow issue presented by the motion is whether the conspiracy ruling and the murder statute are designed to prevent different kinds of harm.

The acts allegedly committed by the man which underlie both the Maryland and New York court are substantially the same. The evidence revealed that the man directed his colleague to go from Maryland to New York to kill the victim. It is alleged that the man’s colleague shot and killed the victim in New York.

Continue reading

The defendant is a confessed serial killer and was convicted by a jury for several offenses including one count of first degree murder for intentionally causing the death of three women in separate criminal transactions that were committed in a similar fashion.

The people filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty and because of this a separate sentencing proceeding followed the jury case. The jury in the sentencing court determined unanimously that the defendant should be executed. The defendant appealed to this court.

Continue reading