You are here: / / THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THIS FIRST DEGREE MURDER (MURDER-FOR-HIRE)...
, , ,

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THIS FIRST DEGREE MURDER (MURDER-FOR-HIRE) TRIAL WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW; IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO FAIL TO SO INSTRUCT THE JURY; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, IT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED SILENCE IN RESPONSE TO AN ACCUSATION (ADOPTIVE ADMISSION) WAS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT HEARD THE ACCUSATION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder-first-degree conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the jury should have been instructed that the defendant’s paramour, Lovell, who was involved the plot to have the victim killed by a third-party, and who testified against the defendant at trial, was an accomplice as a matter of law. Despite defense counsel’s failure to preserve the error, the issue was considered on appeal in the interest of justice. The Second Department also held that the “adoptive admission” by the defendant should not have been admitted in evidence. It was alleged the defendant remained silent when her mother-in-law accused her of killing the victim. The People did not prove defendant actually heard the accusation:

Supreme Court failed to instruct the jury that Lovell was an accomplice and subject to the statutory corroboration requirement. Although the court was “under a duty to charge . . . even without a request from the defendant … , the rule of preservation requires that defense counsel object to the court’s failure in order to preserve a question of law for appellate review … . Notwithstanding defense counsel’s failure to object at trial, under the circumstances of this case, we reach the unpreserved error in the interest of justice and find that the failure to properly instruct the jury constituted reversible error … …. [T]he evidence of the defendant’s guilt, which consisted principally of Lovell’s testimony, was not overwhelming … . * * *

“To use a defendant’s silence or evasive response as evidence against the defendant, the People must demonstrate that the defendant heard and understood the assertion, and reasonably would have been expected to deny it” … . Here, the People failed to establish that the defendant actually heard the mother-in-law’s accusations or that the defendant had an opportunity to respond to the accusations prior to the mother-in-law disconnecting the phone call. Therefore, the court should not have admitted the evidence. People v Noel, 2022 NY Slip Op 04647, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: The testimony of defendant’s paramour, who was involved in the murder-for-hire, was the principal evidence against the defendant. The failure to instruct the jury that the paramour was an accomplice as a matter of law whose testimony must be corroborated was reversible error. Although the error was not preserved the Second Department considered it ion appeal in the interest of justice. The defendant’s silence in the face of an accusation (an adoptive admission) should not have been admitted in evidence because the People did not prove the defendant heard the accusation.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED PURSUANT TO THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE INFORMED HIM OF AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE ROBBERY FIRST CHARGE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT).
A Conditional Judgment May Be Rendered On the Issue of Contractual Indemnity—The Party Seeking Contractual Indemnity Must Be Free from Negligence
BUILDING OWNER, MANAGER, AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR MISLEVELING SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
THE PARTIES MARRIED IN 1974, STARTED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN 1991, DISCONTINUED THE DIVORCE AND BEGAN LIVING TOGETHER AGAIN IN 1998, CONTINUED LIVING TOGETHER UNTIL THE INSTANT DIVORCE IN 2015; SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP ENDED IN 1991; MATTER REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION OF THE MARITAL PROPERTY AND COUNSEL FEES (SECOND DEPT).
THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDITIONED ITS SANDOVAL RULING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CROSS-EXAMINES THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR CRIMINAL HISTORIES (SECOND DEPT).
PROVIDING ELECTRICITY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION; LAWSUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO CUT OFF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY ALLOWED TO PROCEED.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE VACATION OF THE SENTENCE FOR THE MURDER OF HIS... THE ALLEGED MISPRESENTATION IN PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR CAR INSURANCE,...