NY Court of Appeals orders new trial in fatal stabbing case

Listen to this article

New York state’s highest court has ordered a new trial for a woman who fatally stabbed her abusive boyfriend.

The defendant, identified as T.P. in the decision, was tried and convicted of first-degree manslaughter state Supreme Court in Buffalo.

Her trial attorney pursued a justification defense, claiming that the victim was severely physically abused her over the course of their relationship, and she stabbed him during a violent attack.

T.P.’s appellate attorney argued that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to object to remarks that the prosecutor made during summation “which misrepresented critical evidence and repeatedly denigrated the defendant,” Court of Appeals Judge Caitlin J. Halligan wrote for the court.

“We agree, and therefore reverse,” Halligan wrote.

After meeting and starting a romantic relationship, the relationship quickly became abusive, Halligan wrote.

Several witnesses, including the defendant and several of her friends, testified that the victim had physically abused T.P. numerous times.

After spending an evening with several friends, the defendant returned to one friend’s house with the victim and others.

T.P. testified that, after laying down in a back room a friend, the boyfriend raped her. When she pushed the victim off, he became violent and strangled her. She was able to break free and run to another room, according to the decision.

She picked up a kitchen knife and stabbed the victim once as he lunged at her. He died several hours later.

T.P. was indicted and convicted of first-degree manslaughter.

At trial, defense counsel pursued a defense of justification, which excuses the use of deadly physical force when a defendant “reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force,” Halligan wrote.

The judge granted a defense request to issue jury instructions on the justification defense as it relates to the use of deadly physical force.

During summation, the prosecutor suggested that the defendant’s testimony was not credible. The prosecutor told the jury: “You never heard testimony that (the defendant) was in fear for her life. You never heard testimony that she was in fear of serious injury. Nothing.”

On appeal, the prosecution conceded that statement was false.

“The defendant had, in fact, testified that immediately before the stabbing she was ‘scared for my life,’ and when subsequently asked whether she had testified that she was ‘afraid for your life,’ the defendant responded ‘Yes, I was,’” Halligan wrote.

The prosecutor also claimed in summation that the defendant had lied on the stand, using the word “lie” or “lies” 14 times, according to the decision.

T.P.’s trial attorney did not object to the prosecutor’s misstatement of the defendant’s testimony or to the repeated use of the word “lies.”

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that the issue was unpreserved and that trial counsel had not provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to those remarks.

But the Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for sentencing relief under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) and reduced the sentence to a term of four years in prison, with 2 ½ years of post-release supervision.

“We conclude that counsel’s failure to object to multiple improper statements constituted a failure to provide meaningful representation, and under the circumstances of this case, denied the defendant the benefit of a fair trial,” Halligan wrote.

“Several of the prosecutor’s comments during summation were clearly impermissible,” she wrote.

“This misrepresentation of the record well exceeds the bounds of permissible commentary on the evidence, and indeed, contradicts the crux of the defendant’s justification defense.” She wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035