You are here: / / EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S...
,

EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S HIRING THE KILLER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence supported the first degree murder charge, based upon defendant’s hiring the killer. The dissent argued the proof of the contract-killing was insufficient. The second degree murder count should have been dismissed:

We and our dissenting colleagues agree on many points. All of us agree that there was sufficient evidence that defendant was complicit in his wife’s murder. Further, all of us agree that there is evidence that the principal requested a payment of money from defendant only five days before the murder. Nevertheless, our dissenting colleagues characterize that request as “part of a string of otherwise innocent interactions” between defendant and the principal in the days leading up to the murder. The dissent even offers the possibility that the principal was “seeking a reward” from defendant—not for agreeing to murder defendant’s wife, but for unrelated virtuous conduct. We cannot agree. In our view, the jury could rationally have concluded that the principal’s request for a payment of money five days before the murder was not “innocent” at all, but in fact was part and parcel of the murder plot. People v Clayton, 2019 NY Slip Op 06284, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

You might also like
Question of Fact About Whether Plaintiff’s Actions Were Sole Proximate Cause of Fall—Plaintiff Was Using Stilts for Ceiling Work
THERE WAS AN “UNWARNED” THREE-FOOT DROP ON THE OTHER SIDE OF A DOOR IN A REMOTE AREA OF THE HOSPITAL; PLAINTIFF, A HOSPITAL WORKER, WAS INJURED BY THE THREE-FOOT DROP; THE ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND NO DUTY WAS OWED TO THE PLAINTIFF; THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON THE ARCHITECT’S SPECIFICATIONS AND COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTHER’S ALLEGATIONS OF CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A HEARING ON HER CUSTODY PETITION; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Criteria for “Apparent Authority” to Enter a Binding Contract, Including the “Apparent Authority” of a Member of a Limited Liability Corporation, Explained
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE FOR PRESS RELEASE ABOUT TATOO-RELATED INFECTIONS, PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE MALICE.
THE MAJORITY HELD THE INSTALLATION OF AN AIR TANK ON A FLATBED TRAILER WAS NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); THE DISSENT ARGUED THE TRAILER WAS A “STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND LACK OF TIMELY NOTICE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS.
Contract Between Town and Employer of Injured Employee Did Not Allow Indemnification of Town by Employer

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SORA RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED TO LEVEL ONE, NO PROOF AGE OF CHILDREN DEPICTED... DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN HE WAS ASKED POINTED QUESTIONS, NO MIRANDA...