NY Jury Convicts on Manslaughter as Hate Crime in Transgender Killing

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 01:29:34 PM EST
Tags: hate crimes laws (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The New York jury deliberating the case of DeWight Lee, charged with killing of Lateisha Green (legal name Moses Cannon), a transgender person, rejected the prosecution's argument for Second Degree Murder (with or without the hate crime attached) and returned a guilty verdict of First Degree Manslaughter (with the hate crime enhancement.)

The manslaughter finding was a determination that DeLee was only intending to seriously injure -- not kill -- someone when he fired one shot from a .22-caliber rifle into the car in which the victim was sitting with two others.

The difference:

The murder charge accuses DeLee of intentionally killing Cannon. First-degree manslaughter would require a finding he only acted intentionally to cause serious physical injury but caused the victim's death instead. Second-degree manslaughter would mean the jury found DeLee acted recklessly by consciously disregarding the risk posed by his conduct [More...]

The jury can consider all of those theories as a hate crime if they conclude DeLee specifically targeted Cannon because of Cannon's sexual orientation.

The penalty for first degree manslaughter as a hate crime:

DeLee, 20, of Gifford Street, now faces a minimum of 10 years in state prison, and a maximum of 25 years, when he is sentenced by Judge William Walsh Aug. 18.

The penalty for first degree manslaughter in New York (a class B felony), without the hate crime enhancment is "a term shall be fixed by the court, and shall not exceed twenty-five years." Also, "the minimum period shall be fixed by the court and specified in the sentence and shall be not less than one year nor more than one-third of the maximum term imposed."

So, if I understand NY law correctly, without the hate crime enhancement, DeLee would have received 8 1/3 to 25 years. With the enhancement, his sentence will be between 10 and 25 years.

Definition of hate crime:

1. A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified offense and either:
(a) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, or
(b) intentionally commits the act or acts constituting the offense in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct.
2. Proof of race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of the defendant, the victim or of both the defendant and the victim does not, by itself, constitute legally sufficient evidence satisfying the people's burden under paragraph (a) or (b) of subdivision one of this section

< GOP Senators Snowe, Martinez Announce Support For Sotomayor | ACLU Criticizes Senate Version of Hate Crimes Law >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

NY Jury Convicts on Manslaughter as Hate Crime in Transgender Killing | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

No justice (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by mmc9431 on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 02:14:09 PM EST

On the other side of the coin a man in DC was just charged with a misdemeanor assault charge after beating a gay man to death outside a bar in DC. (See today's TowlerRoad site)

His defense was that the victim hit on him. Even assuming that that was the case, there's absolutely no justification in his violent response. There's also no justification in the courts accepting this.

I'm imagining (none / 0) (#5)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 02:34:37 PM EST

that if women went into a rage after being hit on they'd only get charged with a misdemeanor.

Doesn't quite compute.


Quite the reverse is true (none / 0) (#6)
by MO Blue on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 03:04:41 PM EST

In too many cases, she would first be commended for the guy hitting on her and then commended for the crime she committed.


: That's what I meant (none / 0) (#7)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 03:20:04 PM EST

It was unimaginable.

OK (none / 0) (#9)
by MrConservative on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 05:25:16 PM EST

If they beat a man to death after being hit on they'd be charged with a misdemeanor? What?


I just read the story in (none / 0) (#12)
by kenosharick on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:00:39 PM EST

the Advocate, and I am so angry that I am shaking. In a nation where we do not have equality and children are taught every day by the media, their parents, religious and political leaders,ect. that we (gay people) are less than them- I am somehow not surprised. Here is the story:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid99049.asp


The very notion (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by shoephone on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 02:18:05 PM EST

that someone could intentionally shoot a gun into a car and assume the bullet would only wound, not kill... well, that's quite a stretch of belief, to say the least.

Do I understand it correctly that (none / 0) (#2)
by KeysDan on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 02:14:17 PM EST

the maximum (25 years) is the same in both cases but that the court has discretion with the minimum in the absence of the enhancement, with the minimum sentence from one year to 8 l/3 years, but no discretion (10 years minimum) with the enhancement?

shooting (none / 0) (#4)
by Nasarius on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 02:26:36 PM EST

DeLee was only intending to seriously injure -- not kill -- someone when he fired one shot from a .22-caliber rifle into the car in which the victim was sitting with two others.

What?! When you shoot at someone, unless maybe you're carefully aiming at their foot, you can't reasonably think that their death is an unlikely outcome.

well, (none / 0) (#8)
by bocajeff on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 03:56:23 PM EST

was he shooting at that particular person or at anyone in general? If so, does it even matter.


: To shoot at someone sitting (none / 0) (#10)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 06:05:49 PM EST

inside a car leaves a very limited part of the body in ones sight...the most likely parts of the body where a bullet would kill.
Is Assault with a Deadly Weapon a misdemeanor?

: We've had a couple cases. (none / 0) (#11)
by Fabian on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 06:57:56 PM EST

Which I can't remember how they were resolved. The Central Ohio Shooter (paranoid schizophrenic, sad case) would just shoot at random cars on the highway. I think they proved he knew what he was doing was wrong, but I don't know if they proved any specific intent.

In Worthington, a man tired of being "pranked" by local kids shot at a car full of teens. It was dark and difficult to see and his admitted intention was to "scare" them. A high school girl survived a serious head wound.