New trial ordered in murder case

In a split decision, a state appeals court has granted a new trial in a murder case.

Defendant Shala Williams was convicted before Onondaga County Court Judge Theodore H. Limpert in October 2023 of second-degree murder, second-degree assault, and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

In a 3-2 vote, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, reversed the conviction and granted a new trial.

In one previous appeal the Fourth Department affirmed the convictions. But in a separate appeal the Fourth Department sent the case back to County Court for a hearing on a motion to vacate the convictions on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The motion was denied in County Court, but the Fourth Department reversed that ruling, granted the motion, vacated the convictions and granted a new trial.

Williams was tried and convicted a second time of second-degree murder and second-degree assault, which he appealed.

“We agree with defendant that the court erred in refusing to admit in evidence, as a statement against penal interest, the testimony from the CPL article 440 hearing of a witness unavailable to testify at the second trial,” the Fourth Department wrote.

The case stems from an incident in which Williams’ uncle and his uncle’s girlfriend were shot through a closed window of the uncle’s home, killing his uncle.

The shooting took place several hours after Williams attended a gathering at the uncle’s residence, during which Williams and his uncle had a physical altercation.

The prosecutor’s theory of the case was that Williams returned to the residence later that night and shot the victims through a rear window in the residence.

A neighbor testified that he saw the same male in a dark hoodie who had fought with the uncle earlier in the evening banging on the front door of the home before disappearing around the side of the residence just before to the shooting.

But during the hearing a witness testified, against the advice of his attorney, that on the night of the shooting he and another person committed a string of crimes, including an armed robbery of another residence.

He testified that they went to the uncle’s residence to commit another robbery where the other person fired shots into the residence from the backyard through a closed window.

“The witness was unequivocal that defendant was not present during the shooting and did not fire the shots. The witness acknowledged that he might incur legal penalties,” according to the Fourth Department decision.

When questioned outside the presence of the jury, the witness invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The judge denied a defense request that the witness’s testimony from the hearing be admitted in evidence as a statement against penal interest and read to the jury.

“We agree with defendant that the court erred,” the Fourth Department wrote.

Justices Stephen K. Lindley and Donald A. Greenwood dissented and voted to affirm the convictions.

“We disagree with the majority that the court abused its discretion in refusing to admit the witness’s testimony as a declaration against penal interest,” wrote Lindley and Greenwood.

“Here, the record supports the court’s determination that the independent corroboration necessary for admissibility of the declaration against penal interest was not sufficient,” they wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035