Sentence reduced for domestic violence victim in homicide case

A state appeals court has reduced the sentence in a homicide case because the defendant was a domestic violence victim.

The defendant, identified only as T.P. in a decision from the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, was convicted of first-degree manslaughter in September 2019 before state Supreme Court Justice Russell P. Buscaglia.

In the May 9 decision, the Fourth Department reduced the sentence imposed by Buscaglia to four years in state prison and 2½ years of post-release supervision.

T.P.’s appellate attorney, Nikolaus J. Williams, argued that Buscaglia should have instructed the jury on “reputation evidence” in addition to the justification charge.

The defense failed to preserve that contention for appellate review and the court concluded that the issue lacks merit.

“Although the court did not read the addendum, the jurors were appropriately instructed that they should assess the reasonableness of defendant’s belief that she was in deadly peril by judging the situation from the point of view of defendant as though they were actually in her place,” the court wrote.

“Inasmuch as the trial evidence regarding the victim’s capacity for violence consisted almost entirely of direct evidence of his acts of violence toward defendant specifically, a charge addressing reputation evidence was unwarranted and, contrary to defendant’s further contention, counsel was not ineffective for failing to request it,” the court wrote.

T.P.’s contention that she was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct during the summation “was unpreserved and, in any event, without merit,” the court wrote.

“In light of defendant’s acknowledgment at trial that she lied to the police, the prosecutor’s remarks highlighting defendant’s untruthfulness and disagreeing with defense counsel’s assertion that defendant was now telling the truth were fair comment on the evidence,” the court wrote.

“Even if certain other comments made by the prosecutor were improper, they were not so egregious as to deny defendant a fair trial,” the court wrote.

But the court did agree with the defense that a reduction in her sentence was warranted under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA).

Members of the New York State Senate and Assembly who sponsored or supported the passage of the Act submitted an amicus brief wrote that the DVSJA resulted from the legislature’s attempt “to provide a more compassionate sentencing scheme for survivors of domestic violence who committed offenses related to that abuse, even where a jury has rejected a justification defense.”

“All too often in our court system, when women are defending themselves from domestic violence, instead of being met with . . . compassion and assistance and help, they are met with punishment,” the panel wrote, quoting a legislator’s comments during the debate on the bill.

The Act provides an alternative sentencing scheme that the sentencing court may apply where it determines that the defendant was a victim of domestic violence “subjected to substantial physical, sexual or psychological abuse inflicted by a member of the same family or household as the defendant.”

“We conclude that a preponderance of the evidence supports both a finding that defendant was a victim of domestic violence during her relationship with the victim and was subjected to substantial physical, sexual or psychological abuse and a finding that such abuse was a significant contributing factor to the defendant’s criminal behavior,” the panel wrote.

“We further conclude that sentencing defendant pursuant to the normal sentencing guidelines would be “unduly harsh” in light of the nature and circumstances of the crime and the history, character and condition of the defendant,” the court wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035