People v. Muhammad and People v. Hill.
Two Convictions Upheld as High Court Says Juries Can Contradict Themselves
BuffaloNews.com: The convictions of two Buffalo men on separate assault counts were upheld Thursday by the state’s highest court, even though juries found them not guilty of illegally possessing the weapons they used to beat and shoot their victims.
In a sharply divided decision, the court ruled that it is not “inconsistent” for a jury to clear someone of illegal weapons possession but guilty of hurting someone with those weapons.
Three dissenting judges accused the four in the majority of ruling in a way to “solely” preserve the convictions of the two men.
In the case of Shahid Muhammad, the weapon was a gun. Timothy Hollis was shot five times during a street brawl in Buffalo in 2002.
In the case of Gregory Hill, the weapon was a hammer. The hammer was used in 2006 to strike the head of Brian Dudas, who had angered Hill by knocking over an ashtray onto a couch while they watched a hockey game on television, according to court papers.
In both cases, the Court of Appeals rejected the defense counsel’s argument for the two men: that it is “impossible to intentionally injure a person with a weapon that a jury has found the accused did not possess with the intent to use unlawfully.”
Instead, the court accepted prosecutors’ contentions from the Erie County District Attorney’s Office that the “jury instructions in these cases allowed the jurors to consider the state of mind of the accused at the time the weapon was initially possessed or acquired and before the formation of an intent to use it unlawfully against another.”
In writing for the majority, Judge Victoria A. Graffeo said the U. S. Supreme Court has previously held that the Constitution “does not prohibit a jury from rendering a verdict that is inherently inconsistent" to continue reading go here.
Comments