Bernard Tyler fired his gun multiple times at close range striking his victim in the abdomen and thigh, ultimately killing him.
The Niagara County Court convicted Tyler of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
Although Tyler contended that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, didn't agree. According to the AD4, since Tyler shot the victim multiple times at close range, a reasonable view of the evidence supported the charges.
While Tyler argued that the lower court's instructions to the jury regarding his intent and the judge's responses to the jury's questions concerning those instructions were inadequate, the AD4 refused to run with those arguments.
Nor was Tyler deprived of "effective assistance of counsel," even though his attorney didn't object to the sufficiency of the evidence nor the jury charge, since there was little or no chance that such an argument would have had any success.
The AD4 also rejected Tyler's contention that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress statements made to the police since Tyler had waived his Miranda rights and was not entitled to have counsel present. According to the AD4, the right to counsel did not extend to situations where a defendant is arrested on a bench warrant for a prior pending unrelated charge and then, after waiving his Miranda rights, is questioned on new charges.
Finally, the appellate court did not believe it was in error to deny Tyler's request for an instruction concerning a witness's impeachment since the prosecution had not made any "deals" with that individual and there was no basis for the jury to conclude that any benefit the witness might derive would have affected the truthfulness of the testimony.
Do you get the impression that the AD4 wanted to tie Tyler to his sentence?
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Tyler