You are here: / Criminal Law

FIRST DEPT REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO TWO, BASED PRIMARILY UPON DEFENDANT’S USE OF EDUCATIONAL AND REHABILITATIVE RESOURCES WHILE IN PRISON.

The First Department took the unusual step of reducing defendant’s SORA risk level from three to two. Defendant committed a heinous rape 30 years ago when he was using drugs and alcohol. While in prison defendant earned two bachelor degrees and completed many therapeutic programs:

The Court of Appeals has enunciated a three-step process for determining whether to depart downward from a defendant’s presumptive risk level … . First, a court must decide whether the proffered mitigating circumstance or circumstances are “of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . Second, a court must determine whether the defendant seeking a downward departure has proven the existence of these alleged mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence … . If the defendant surmounts these first two steps, a court must then exercise its discretion and determine at the final third step, “whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure” …. .

Here, we find that, under this three-step analysis, a departure to level two is warranted. Initially, we note that defendant has met his burden of proving the existence of mitigating circumstances unaccounted for in the Guidelines by a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant’s remarkable rehabilitation and his pain and mobility problems constitute, in this case, the sort of “special circumstances” for which a downward departure is appropriate … . Moreover, defendant supported his application with a number of exhibits, including his degrees, his medical records, and his letters of recommendation. People v Williams, 2017 NY Slip Op 01988, 1st Dept 3-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FIRST DEPARTMENT REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO TWO, BASED PRIMARILY UPON DEFENDANT’S USE OF EDUCATIONAL AND REHABILITATIVE RESOURCES WHILE IN PRISON)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (FIRST DEPARTMENT REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO TWO, BASED PRIMARILY UPON DEFENDANT’S USE OF EDUCATIONAL AND REHABILITATIVE RESOURCES WHILE IN PRISON)

,

ALLOWING POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY ABOUT VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT AT A SHOWUP WAS NOT BOLSTERING, VICTIM’S STATEMENT WAS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE.

The First Department determined a police officer was properly allowed to testify the robbery victim identified defendant at a showup because the victim’s statement was an excited utterance:

At trial, the court properly permitted a police officer to testify that the victim of the … robbery identified defendant at a showup. This testimony was admissible, notwithstanding the general rule against third-party bolstering … , because the victim’s declaration qualified as an excited utterance. Shortly after the victim was robbed at gunpoint in his taxicab, he called 911 and was brought in a police vehicle to defendant, who was being detained. The victim immediately yelled, “[O]h my God[!] . . . [I]t is the same guy . . . . Thank God you caught him[!]” Under the circumstances, this identification was made “under the stress of excitement caused by an external event, and [was] not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication” … . People v Everette, 2017 NY Slip Op 01962, 1st Dept 3-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ALLOWING POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY ABOUT VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT AT A SHOWUP WAS NOT BOLSTERING, VICTIM’S STATEMENT WAS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY ABOUT VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT AT A SHOWUP WAS NOT BOLSTERING, VICTIM’S STATEMENT WAS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY ABOUT VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT AT A SHOWUP WAS NOT BOLSTERING, VICTIM’S STATEMENT WAS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE)/BOLSTERING (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY ABOUT VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT AT A SHOWUP WAS NOT BOLSTERING, VICTIM’S STATEMENT WAS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE)/EXCITED UTTERANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY ABOUT VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT AT A SHOWUP WAS NOT BOLSTERING, VICTIM’S STATEMENT WAS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE)/SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY ABOUT VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT AT A SHOWUP WAS NOT BOLSTERING, VICTIM’S STATEMENT WAS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE)/INDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY ABOUT VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT AT A SHOWUP WAS NOT BOLSTERING, VICTIM’S STATEMENT WAS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE)

DEFENDANT’S OMISSIONS, INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND LIES AFTER A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP JUSTIFIED THE CANINE SNIFF.

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the motion to suppress cocaine discovered using a canine sniff after a traffic stop for tinted windows was properly denied. Enough information and inconsistencies came to the officers’ attention after the stop to warrant the dog sniff. Defendant was on parole but initially did not inform the officer of that fact, the stop was outside the county in which defendant was paroled, defendant lied about his cell phone being broken, etc.:

The prolonged diet of inconsistencies and lies provided by defendant about his travels, when coupled with his parole situation and his nervous demeanor throughout the encounter, combined to give the officers a “founded suspicion of criminality” … . This founded suspicion justified both the extension of the stop after its initial justification had been exhausted and the exterior canine sniff that followed … . … The alert gave the troopers probable cause to search the vehicle and recover the bookbag from the back seat that contained cocaine … . People v Banks, 2017 NY Slip Op 01916, 3rd Dept 3-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S OMISSIONS, INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND LIES AFTER A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP JUSTIFIED THE CANINE SNIFF)/SUPPRESSION (DEFENDANT’S OMISSIONS, INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND LIES AFTER A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP JUSTIFIED THE CANINE SNIFF)/TRAFFIC STOP (DEFENDANT’S OMISSIONS, INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND LIES AFTER A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP JUSTIFIED THE CANINE SNIFF)/CANINE SNIFF (DEFENDANT’S OMISSIONS, INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND LIES AFTER A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP JUSTIFIED THE CANINE SNIFF)

,

NO NEED FOR ARRESTING OFFICER TO TESTIFY AT SUPPRESSION HEARING, INFERENCE OF MUTUAL COMMUNICATION APPLIED.

The First Department determined the arresting officer did not need to testify at the suppression hearing and explained the inference of mutual communication:

The arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant under the fellow officer rule because “the radio transmission [of] the undercover officer . . . provided details of the defendant’s race, sex, clothing, as well as his location and the fact that a positive buy’ had occurred” and defendant was the only person in the area who matched the description at the location … . Although the arresting officer did not testify at the suppression hearing, “the only rational explanation for how defendant came to be arrested . . . is that [the arresting officer] heard the radio communication [heard by the testifying officer] and apprehended defendant on that basis” … . The inference of mutual communication … does not turn on what kind of radios the officers were using, or how well the radios were working, but on the simple fact that, without hearing the radio transmission, the arresting officer would have had no way of knowing where to go or whom to arrest. People v Vidro, 2017 NY Slip Op 01975, 1st Dept 3-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (NO NEED FOR ARRESTING OFFICER TO TESTIFY AT SUPPRESSION HEARING, INFERENCE OF MUTUAL COMMUNICATION APPLIED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO NEED FOR ARRESTING OFFICER TO TESTIFY AT SUPPRESSION HEARING, INFERENCE OF MUTUAL COMMUNICATION APPLIED)/MUTUAL COMMUNICATION , INFERENCE OF (CRIMINAL LAW, NO NEED FOR ARRESTING OFFICER TO TESTIFY AT SUPPRESSION HEARING, INFERENCE OF MUTUAL COMMUNICATION APPLIED)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, NO NEED FOR ARRESTING OFFICER TO TESTIFY AT SUPPRESSION HEARING, INFERENCE OF MUTUAL COMMUNICATION APPLIED)

IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SAME ACT, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.

The Second Department determined defendant should have been sentenced concurrently for his two assault convictions. The victim was stabbed 20 times and his face was slashed. Defendant was convicted of two counts of assault first—intent to disfigure and intent to cause serious injury. It was not possible to determine whether the jury convicted on both counts based upon only the slashing of the victim’s face as opposed to two different acts:

We agree with the defendant’s contention. Pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25(2), concurrent sentences must be imposed “for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other.” ” Thus, sentences [of imprisonment] imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively: (1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other'” … . Nonetheless, ” trial courts retain consecutive sentence discretion when separate offenses are committed through separate acts, though they are part of a single transaction'” … .

Here, the People have failed to establish that the acts constituting the respective assault in the first degree convictions were separate and distinct from each other as required by the statute … . It is impossible to determine from the record whether the slashing of an “X” into the victim’s face, which formed the basis for the assault in the first degree “intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently” conviction … , also formed the basis for the jury’s verdict of guilt on the assault in the first degree “intent to cause serious physical injury” conviction …  Thus, the People failed to establish that the acts constituting each of the two assault in the first degree convictions were separate and distinct from each other. People v Henderson, 2017 NY Slip Op 01885, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SAME ACT, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES)/SENTENCING (IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SAME ACT, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES)/CONCURRENT SENTENCES (IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SAME ACT, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES)/CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES (IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SAME ACT, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES)

, ,

POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED.

The Second Department sent the matter back for a report from Supreme Court because the possibility of deportation was not mentioned at the time of the guilty plea:

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court mentioned the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the defendant’s plea. Under the circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea, and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter. Any such motion shall be made by the defendant within 60 days after the date of this decision and order … , and, upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation … . In its report to this Court, the Supreme Court shall state whether the defendant moved to vacate his plea of guilty, and if so, shall set forth its finding as to whether the defendant made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing … . People v Agramonte, 2017 NY Slip Op 01876, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

CRIMINAL LAW (POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED)/DEPORATION (CRIMINAL LAW, POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED)

,

911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES.

The Second Department determined a 911 call and a prior consistent statement were properly admitted as excited utterances:

… [T]he recording of the 911 call was properly admitted into evidence under the excited utterance and present sense impression exceptions to the hearsay rule, as the probative value of this evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect … .

The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor elicited testimony from a police officer and the victim’s niece regarding statements made by the victim’s son at the scene, which improperly bolstered the testimony of the victim’s son identifying the defendant as the shooter. … . If a proffered statement also meets the requirements to be admitted as an excited utterance, its admission would be proper, notwithstanding the characterization as a prior consistent statement … . Here, the Supreme Court properly admitted the testimony of the police officer and the victim’s niece concerning the statements of the victim’s son at the scene identifying the defendant as the shooter under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, and that testimony did not constitute improper bolstering … . People v Chin, 2017 NY Slip Op 01880, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, 911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, 911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)/EXCITED UTTERANCES (CRIMINAL LAW, 911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)

,

WITNESS’S DISAVOWED IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER AS THE PERPETRATOR COULD NOT BE USED AFFIRMATIVELY BY THE DEFENDANT AS EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY.

The First Department determined a witness’s disavowed identification of another as the perpetrator could not be used as evidence of third-party culpability:

The court providently exercised its discretion in ruling that defendant could not, in the absence of additional evidence, argue that the person initially identified by the witness was the actual perpetrator … , and this ruling did not deprive defendant of a fair trial or the right to present a defense. The court did not preclude defendant from introducing evidence of third-party culpability; on the contrary, it expressly invited defendant to introduce certain evidence of that nature. Rather than precluding a third-party culpability defense, the court providently ruled that such a defense could not, without more, be supported by the disavowed identification, which the witness explained as a deliberate falsehood. Defendant received a full opportunity to explore the misidentification and all surrounding circumstances, and to use these matters to attack the witness’s credibility. While defendant cites additional evidence that would have supported the claim that the misidentified man was the actual perpetrator, he was free to introduce this evidence at trial but failed to do so. Even if the court had permitted defendant to specifically argue third-party culpability in summation, defendant would not have been entitled to argue about matters not in evidence. People v Francis, 2017 NY Slip Op 01817, 1st Dept 3-15-17

CRIMINAL LAW (WITNESS’S DISAVOWED IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER AS THE PERPETRATOR COULD NOT BE USED AFFIRMATIVELY BY THE DEFENDANT AS EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WITNESS’S DISAVOWED IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER AS THE PERPETRATOR COULD NOT BE USED AFFIRMATIVELY BY THE DEFENDANT AS EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY)/THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY (CRMINAL LAW, (WITNESS’S DISAVOWED IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER AS THE PERPETRATOR COULD NOT BE USED AFFIRMATIVELY BY THE DEFENDANT AS EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY)

FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion, determined (in the interest of justice) the two defendants were deprived of a fair trial by the failure of the trial judge give supplemental instructions to clarify the requirements for robbery convictions under an accomplice (shared intent) theory. One of the two defendants stole three rings from a small shop. The other struck the shopkeeper after she confronted them. The jury made repeated requests for clarification of the intent criteria. In response to each request the trial court read the elements of the robbery charges and accomplice liability:

With regard to Telesford, the issue of intent was critical in one respect. The evidence adduced at trial undeniably established that Telesford assaulted the complainant. To sustain a conviction for robbery in the second degree based upon accessorial liability, however, the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Telesford acted with the mental culpability necessary to commit the robbery and that, in furtherance thereof, he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal to commit such crime … . Thus, in this case, an inference that Telesford helped Celestine commit the robbery, based on his role as an accomplice, would have been insufficient to prove the requisite intent to steal, in the absence of a specific finding that Telesford intended to do more than commit an assault … .

With regard to Celestine, the issue of intent was critical in a different respect. Undeniably, the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Celestine took the three rings. Such conduct, however, by itself, constituted no more than a larceny, absent proof that either defendant used force to take or retain the stolen items. Although, as indicated, Telesford did use force to attack the victim, in order to convict either defendant of robbery, the jury needed to find that the violent attack on the victim, by Telesford, was not a mere response to insults and being spat upon by the victim, but that it was rather part and parcel to the taking or retaining of the stolen items. In other words, the jury had to find that Celestine intended to use force to retain the ring(s), either by using his own force or taking advantage of Telesford use of force … . People v Telesford, 2017 NY Slip Op 01836, 1st Dept 3-15-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL)/ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY (FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL)/SHARED INTENT (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL)

,

DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER-ASSAULT CASE, DEFENDANT, WHO PROVIDED THE GUN TO THE SHOOTER, WAS DEEMED TO SHARE THE SHOOTER’S INTENT.

The Second Department, in an extensive decision with an equally extensive dissent, determined defendant was entitled to a new trial on manslaughter and assault charges because the trial judge did not instruct the jury on the justification defense. Defendant was not the shooter. Defendant provided the gun to the shooter (Martinez-Mendoza) during a confrontation with a group of people outside a bar, where defendant had been beaten up. Because it was alleged defendant shared the shooter’s intent, and because it was possible (despite conflicting evidence) the shooter feared the use of deadly force when he fired, defendant was entitled to the justification jury charge:

At the outset, we note that whether the defendant intended for Martinez-Mendoza to use the gun he provided or knew that he would use the gun does not preclude a defense of justification … .

… [H]ere, some evidence contradicted the defendant’s testimony. However, the record also included evidence, including testimony from Martinez-Mendoza, that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant and drawing all reasonable permissible inferences in his favor, indicated the propriety of charging the justification defense requested by the defendant. Indeed, a justification defense was found to be appropriate in cases where part of a defendant’s testimony was inconsistent with a justification defense … , where a defendant’s testimony was in conflict with that of other witnesses … , and even where there was “strong” evidence to negate a defendant’s testimony relating to justification … .

Furthermore, we disagree with the conclusion drawn by our dissenting colleague that the defendant could not have reasonably believed that there was no ability to safely retreat, as demonstrated by the fact that the defendant, along with his female companions, were able to get to the car without incident a few minutes earlier. The use of lethal defensive force is limited to circumstances when the defender cannot “with complete personal safety, to oneself and others,” “avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating” … . However, the duty to retreat does not arise until the defendant forms a reasonable belief that another person “is using or about to use deadly physical force” … . More specifically, the other person’s deadly force must be actually occurring or imminent before the duty to retreat arises … . Here, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, might lead a jury to decide that it was not until the point in time that the defendant returned to his companions with the gun that the threat of deadly physical force was imminent. Thus, the justification defense remained available to this defendant, even though it may have been more prudent for his own safety for him to leave the area of [the bar] when he first went to the car to retrieve the gun … . People v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 01718. 2nd Dept 3-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER-ASSAULT CASE, DEFENDANT, WHO PROVIDED THE GUN TO THE SHOOTER, WAS DEEMED TO SHARE THE SHOOTER’S INTENT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER-ASSAULT CASE, DEFENDANT, WHO PROVIDED THE GUN TO THE SHOOTER, WAS DEEMED TO SHARE THE SHOOTER’S INTENT)/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER-ASSAULT CASE, DEFENDANT, WHO PROVIDED THE GUN TO THE SHOOTER, WAS DEEMED TO SHARE THE SHOOTER’S INTENT)/ACCOMPLICE (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER-ASSAULT CASE, DEFENDANT, WHO PROVIDED THE GUN TO THE SHOOTER, WAS DEEMED TO SHARE THE SHOOTER’S INTENT)

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