People v. W.
2018 Slip Op 05950
Aug. 29, 2018
People v. W.
2018 Slip Op 05950
Aug. 29, 2018
People v. J
2018 NY Slip Op 05692
August 8, 2018
A man filed an action to dismiss the charge of murder against him. He subsequently indicted in the State of Maryland, along with his colleague, on the allegation that he conspired with them to the murder of the victim. But, the man was acquitted of the conspiracy charge upon a jury verdict. The narrow issue presented by the motion is whether the conspiracy ruling and the murder statute are designed to prevent different kinds of harm.
The acts allegedly committed by the man which underlie both the Maryland and New York court are substantially the same. The evidence revealed that the man directed his colleague to go from Maryland to New York to kill the victim. It is alleged that the man’s colleague shot and killed the victim in New York.
The defendant is a confessed serial killer and was convicted by a jury for several offenses including one count of first degree murder for intentionally causing the death of three women in separate criminal transactions that were committed in a similar fashion.
The people filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty and because of this a separate sentencing proceeding followed the jury case. The jury in the sentencing court determined unanimously that the defendant should be executed. The defendant appealed to this court.
The petitioner, an inmate at Coxsackie Correctional Facility, has commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding to review a determination by respondent New York State Board of Parole denying his request for discretionary release. Respondent opposes the petition seeking its dismissal.
Currently, the petitioner is serving an indeterminate prison sentence of 15 years to life upon a plea of guilty to Murder in the second degree. The underlying offense that occurred in 1980 involved the petitioner, in concert with others, robbing a victim at knife-point and then stabbing the victim to death. The petitioner was approximately 20 years old at the time he committed the underlying offense.
In this criminal case, defendant moves this court to declare Penal Law Â§ 125.27 (1) (a) (vii) unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it certain phrases that fail to receive consistent definitions. A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant argues that the phrases “in the course of” and “in furtherance of” run afoul of his State and Federal constitutional protections. A Lawyer said that, defeincludesndant seeks to have this court dismiss the first degree murder counts of the indictment, or preclude their application to him. The People oppose his motion.
The issue in this case is whether Penal Law Â§ 125.27 (1) (a) (vii) is unconstitutional warranting the dismissal of defendant’s first degree murder counts of the indictment, or preclude their application to him.
On 21 January 1997, an omnibus motion was filed by the defendant and requested numerous orders and hearings. The People filed papers in opposition, and the defendant filed a reply. Oral argument was heard on the motions.
A 43-year old New Yorker has been charged with murder in the second degree. The prosecution alleged that the defendant was involved in the murder of an eyewitness to the said murder and sought to introduce the witness’ grand jury testimony at the defendant’s trial on the ground that the defendant waived his right to confront the witness.
The records of the case showed that the witness was the only civilian witness to testify before the Grand Jury. The witness said that he saw the shooting of man he knew by name who he described was a security guard but who was not wearing a uniform at the time of the incident. According to the witness’ mother, she asked her son to change his testimony or not to testify because she received several phone calls telling her that her son was the cause why another man was in jail. The caller also allegedly asked the witness’ mother to testify on behalf of her son and tell the grand jury that her son was a drug addict and that he had not seen the crime that he claimed to have seen. The mother said the caller never threatened her nor her son. The records showed that the mother only gave this testimony after her son was killed. The witness’ body was found in a deserted oversized alley. He had been shot 16 times and sustained a shot gun blast as well as bullet wounds. His mother said her son had been living in the streets because of his drug involvement and refusal to seek help and family guidance.
In January of 1996, a man offered a woman $1,500.00 to use her apartment for a drug deal. She accepted and the man and another man moved into the woman’s apartment to wait for a large amount of heroin to be delivered from San Francisco by another man. While in the apartment, the woman saw that one of the men, the defendant, had a small caliber handgun. When the man from San Francisco who was delivering the heroin arrived in New York, the woman and two men went to his hotel.
Several days later, the defendant and the woman returned to the hotel and searched it for the heroin. When they found it, they returned to the woman’s apartment where the other men were watching television. The woman stated that she was in the living room when the defendant and the other men went into the back bedroom. They came out about 15 minutes later without the man from San Francisco. She testified later that she went in to the back bedroom and discovered the San Francisco man lying on the bed face down with blood pouring from his head. The defendant and the other two men divided the heroin among them and then convinced the woman to help them wrap the body in a rug. They dumped the body along Riverside Drive in Upper Manhattan where it was quickly found and identified.