NY appeals court vacates murder conviction for lack of evidence

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has vacated a murder conviction because of insufficient evidence.

Defendant Randall A. Scott was convicted in May 2023 before Monroe County Court Judge Meredith A. Vacca of second-degree murder.

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed the verdict, dismissed the indictment, and sent the case back to Monroe County Court.

The conviction was based on a theory of accessorial liability for Scott’s alleged involvement in a fatal shooting by a codefendant, who was tried separately and convicted.

Scott’s appellate attorney, William T. Easton, argued that the conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

“We agree, and we therefore reverse the judgment and dismiss the indictment,” the court wrote.

The codefendant was wearing a GPS-equipped ankle bracelet that constantly reported his location to authorities, so the prosecution was able to establish the codefendant’s whereabouts throughout the day in question and that it was the codefendant who shot and killed the victim.

The court also concluded that the evidence showed that Scott drove the codefendant to and from the scene of the murder.

“Defendant admitted that much to the police, and video footage admitted in evidence at trial placed defendant’s distinctive vehicle at various locations that corresponded with the codefendant’s location on the day in question,” according to the decision.

Because there was no dispute that Scott did not shoot the victim, his guilt as an accessory depends entirely on whether his intent to commit the murder can be inferred from his actions as the codefendant’s driver, the court wrote.

Scott’s presence at the scene of the crime alone is insufficient for a finding of criminal liability, the court noted.

“Here, we have no difficulty concluding … that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences by which the jury could have found that defendant intentionally aided the codefendant after the murder, but we cannot conclude that there is legally sufficient evidence to support the inference that defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to kill the victim,” the court wrote.

There was no evidence establishing that Scott and the codefendant had any conversations about the shooting and there was hardly any evidence establishing that Scott and the codefendant had any interaction with each other before the day of the murder.

“Consequently, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant was aware of, and shared, the codefendant’s intent to kill the victim,” the court concluded.

Even if the evidence was legally sufficient, the Fourth Department, questioned whether the jury was justified in finding that Scott’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[email protected] / (585) 2232-2035