Legal Commentary

NY Jury Convicts on Manslaughter as Hate Crime in Transgender Killing

By Jeralyn

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

Full post as published by TalkLeft on July 17, 2009 (boomark / email).