You are here: / / PETITION TO PROHIBIT RETRIAL OF A MANSLAUGHTER COUNT DENIED, ALTHOUGH THE...

PETITION TO PROHIBIT RETRIAL OF A MANSLAUGHTER COUNT DENIED, ALTHOUGH THE FOURTH DEPT DISMISSED THE COUNT AFTER DETERMINING THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AGREEING THAT THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, HELD THAT THE PEOPLE COULD SEEK A SECOND INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department dismissed an Article 78 petition seeking to prohibit retrial in a manslaughter case. The Fourth Department had dismissed the manslaughter count after determining the verdict was repugnant. The Court of Appeals agreed the verdict was repugnant but held that dismissal of the was not required:

​

Petitioner was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime … and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree … . On appeal from the judgment of conviction, we determined that the verdict convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime yet acquitting him of manslaughter in the first degree was inconsistent, i.e., ” legally impossible,’ ” inasmuch as all of the elements of manslaughter in the first degree are elements of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime … . We thus modified the judgment by reversing that part convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime and dismissing that count of the indictment.

The Court of Appeals agreed that “the jury’s verdict was inconsistent, and thus repugnant” … , but disagreed with our remedy of dismissal. The Court explained that there is “no constitutional or statutory provision that mandates dismissal for a repugnancy error,” …  and that “a repugnant verdict does not always signify that a defendant has been convicted of a crime on which the jury actually found that he did not commit an essential element” … . … As a result, the Court determined that the People could “resubmit the crime of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime to a new grand jury” … . Matter of DeLee v Brunetti, 2018 NY Slip Op 00742, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (REPUGNANT VERDICTS, PETITION TO PROHIBIT RETRIAL OF A MANSLAUGHTER COUNT DENIED, ALTHOUGH THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISMISSED THE COUNT AFTER DETERMINING THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AGREEING THAT THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, HELD THAT THE PEOPLE COULD SEEK A SECOND INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/REPUGNANT VERDICTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PETITION TO PROHIBIT RETRIAL OF A MANSLAUGHTER COUNT DENIED, ALTHOUGH THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISMISSED THE COUNT AFTER DETERMINING THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AGREEING THAT THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, HELD THAT THE PEOPLE COULD SEEK A SECOND INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

/by
You might also like
MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER, WHO HAD WORKED FOR THE TOWN FOR 32 YEARS, TOOK $181 FROM PETTY CASH AND LEFT A NOTE INDICATING SHE OWED MONEY TO THE FUND; THE LARCENY AND THEFT CHARGES WERE ANNULLED; TERMINATION WAS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE APPRISED DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (FOURTH DEPT).
STATUTE PROHIBITING LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO ALL LEVEL THREE OFFENDERS, NOT ONLY THOSE INCARCERATED FOR AN ENUMERATED SEX CRIME AT THE TIME OF THEIR RELEASE ON PAROLE, HERE THE PETITIONER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADJUDICATED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER BUT WAS BEING PAROLED AFTER INCARCERATION FOR A ROBBERY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
INCARCERATION AFTER A PROBATION VIOLATION IN THIS VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE DEEMED HARSH AND SEVERE, PROBATION REINSTATED WITH 100 HOURS COMMUNITY SERVICE (FOURTH DEPT).
NOT ASKING A GRAND JURY TO CONSIDER A CHARGE FOR WHICH SOME EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED DID NOT AMOUNT TO WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGE (WHICH WOULD REQUIRE JUDICIAL PERMISSION TO RE-PRESENT).
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE MORTGAGE, THE DEATH OF THE BORROWER DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; BECAUSE THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS FOR THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE STILL OWING AND THE ACTION WAS NOT BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY THAT DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE APPEARED TO BE INTOXICATED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S RELIABILITY AS A WITNESS AND COULD PROPERLY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION MERGE AND CANNOT RUN CONSECUTIVELY, ILLEGAL... INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFINITION OF ‘BUILDING’ REQUIRED...