You are here: / / THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONSIDER A THEORY OF DEPRAVED...

THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONSIDER A THEORY OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER WHICH WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the jury instructions allowed the jury to consider a theory of prosecution that was not alleged in the bill of particulars. The defendant was charged with hitting and shaking the child victim, but the jury was allowed to consider defendant’s alleged inaction after the alleged assault:

“A defendant has a right to be tried only for the crimes charged in the indictment” … . ” ‘Where the prosecution is limited by the indictment or bill of particulars to a certain theory or theories, the court must hold the prosecution to such narrower theory or theories’ ” … . We agree with defendant that the People’s theory of depraved indifference, as outlined in the bill of particulars, was limited to defendant’s assaultive conduct, i.e., his infliction of head injuries by shaking or hitting the child, and that the court’s instruction allowed the jury to consider, in addition to the specifically delineated assaultive conduct, defendant’s “inaction” after the assault ended. … [D]efendant objected during the charge conference to a modification of the depraved indifference charge. The charge, as modified, allowed the jury to … consider “the defendant’s later inaction as a factor when considering the brutal, prolonged and ultimately fatal course of conduct,” and defendant objected on the ground that such proof was outside the scope of the bill of particulars. People v Faison, 2021 NY Slip Op 05184, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE DEEMED HARMLESS, A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO AND POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PROVIDE HEARSAY EVIDENCE AS MOLINEUX “BACKGROUND INFORMATION” (FOURTH DEPT).
JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY TO MOTHER AND FATHER AND PRIMARY CUSTODY TO FATHER WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Mother’s Parental Rights Terminated Because of Her Mental Retardation
PLAINTIFF WAS BROUGHT TO THE HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW AFTER THREATENING FAMILY MEMBERS AND KILLING A DOG; DEFENDANTS RELEASED PLAINTIFF THE SAME DAY AND PLAINTIFF KILLED THE FAMILY MEMBERS; PLAINTIFF ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL ILLNESS; THE RULE PROHIBITING A PLAINTIFF FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN WRONG DID NOT APPLY AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE; THE NECESSITY MUST EXIST AT THE TIME THE LANDLOCKED PARCEL WAS SEVERED; PROOF OF A FUTURE INTENT TO USE THE PARCEL FOR PERSONAL PARKING WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, JURORS COULD NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE THEY COULD PUT ASIDE THEIR RESERVATIONS AND BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A NEW TRIAL AND BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER ISSUES NOT RULED UPON BY THE TRIAL COURT, THE TRIAL COURT WAS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER TWO EVIDENTIARY ISSUES, ONE RAISED BY THE PEOPLE, AND ONE RAISED BY THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
The Striking Down (by the Court of Appeals) of a Retroactive Zoning Ordinance Which Prohibited the Operation of a Landfill Did Not Require the Striking Down of a Subsequent Health and Safety Regulation Which Had the Same Effect
GRANDMOTHER’S APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF VISITATION HEARD DESPITE THE FACT THAT GRANDMOTHER HAD BEEN GRANTED VISITATION WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING; DISSENT ARGUED THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (FOURTH DEPT).

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

A TOWN IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER IN A “FIRE... THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE NEGOTIATED A PLEA DEAL WITH A CO-DEFENDANT REQUIRING...