The defendant is appealing a judgment made in the Supreme Court of New York County. The judgment convicted the defendant of criminal facilitation in the second degree and sentenced him to a term of seven and a half to fifteen years.
The defendant was with another individual when he received a pistol from a woman who thought that the victim in the case had robbed a drug dealer that she employed. The individual stated that he did not know who the victim was, so the defendant stated that he would show him.
The defendant accompanied the individual to the stairwell of a building where he knew the victim might be and pointed him out to the man who then killed the victim with three shots to the head.
The people contend on appeal that the individual planned on killing the victim and not just injure or frighten him. There is evidence to support that the defendant knew that the individual was planning on killing the victim and not simply going to injure or frighten him.
The former assistant to the district attorney testified during the trial that the defendant told them during an interview that when the other individual was given the gun he stated that he was going to kill the victim.
The detective that testified did not state that the defendant told him that he knew that the intent was to kill the victim. The detective testified that the defendant said something to the effect that the woman said that she wanted something done about the robbery and when the other individual took the gun he said that he agreed to do something about it.
On cross examination the detective was asked if the defendant had stated during his interview that the woman wanted the victim beaten up. The detective responded that the defendant had said that she had wanted him beaten up and hurt.
On appeal the people have not attempted to defend the notion that without an expressed admission from a witness that he or she made a statement previously that was inconsistent, the possibility that someone else made the statement precludes impeaching the witness that made the statement.
Court Discussion and Decision
The criminal court has reviewed the testimony that was provided during the case as well as the other facts in regard to the outcome. After careful consideration, the court finds that the testimony from the assistant district attorney and the detective cannot be used as it is found to be unreliable. There is no consistent proof that the defendant stated that he knew that the intent was to kill the victim.
For this reason, the appeal is granted and the defendant will be granted a new trial.
If you need to speak with an attorney regarding a legal issue call Stephen Bilkis & Associates at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW (1-800-696-9529). We have offices located around New York City for your convenience. Call us today to make an appointment for your free consultation with one of our expert New York attorneys.