Split court upholds murder conviction

Listen to this article

In a split decision, a state appeals court has upheld a murder conviction.

Defendant Terry L. Williams was convicted in July 2018 in Monroe County Court before Judge Vincent M. Dinolfo of second-degree murder and fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, voted 3-2 to affirm the convictions.

The victim was the defendant’s former girlfriend. Her decomposed body was found in her apartment.

Williams initially denied having anything to do with his girlfriend’s death, claiming he moved out of her apartment, and she was alive when he last saw her.

Williams eventually made incriminating statements and was indicted.

Williams moved to suppress the statements he made to police, claiming the statements were not voluntary because, at the start of the interview, the investigators misled him into thinking they wanted to talk about a larceny, which, they said, was “no big deal.”

He also claimed that the investigators used dubious tactics, such as suggesting theories of guilt and presenting him with false evidence.

One issue addressed in the appeal was whether police were just seeking “pedigree” information before Williams was read his Miranda rights. Police can ask for basic information, such as name, date of birth, and address without reading someone Miranda rights.

Williams claimed police went beyond pedigree type questions and the statements should be suppressed.

Dinolfo denied the motion to suppress and wrote in his decision that, after being read the Miranda warnings, Williams “unambiguously waived his rights and agreed to speak with law enforcement with apparent full knowledge of those rights.”

Williams argued, for the first time on appeal, that “investigators subjected him to custodial interrogation for five or six minutes before reading him the Miranda warnings.”

He argued that incriminating statements made post-Miranda should be suppressed “because there was not a definite and pronounced break in the interrogation after defendant made his pre-Miranda statements.”

But Williams failed to preserve that issue for appellate review, the majority ruled.

“Under the circumstances, and considering that defendant, as a three-time convicted felon, had extensive experience with the police and criminal justice system prior to his interview, we perceive no compelling reason to exercise our power to review defendant’s unpreserved contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice,” the majority wrote.

Justices Mark A. Montour and E. Jeannette Ogden dissented and voted to send the case back to County Court.

“In its written decision, the court found that the investigators who interviewed defendant … had asked pedigree questions prior to issuing the Miranda warnings and then concluded as a matter of law that defendant’s answers to the pedigree questions were admissible as an exception to the Miranda requirement,” the minority wrote.

“Therefore, the court expressly decided the first issue raised on appeal, thereby preserving it for our review. We agree with defendant that the court erred in concluding that the disputed pre-Miranda questions fell within the pedigree exception to the Miranda requirement,” the minority wrote.

We would therefore hold the case and remit the matter to County Court for a ruling on that issue.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035