People v. Muhammad
17 N.Y.3d 532
NY2011Background
- Muhammad indicted for attempted murder, first-degree assault, and second-degree weapon possession for shooting a man; acquitted of attempted murder and weapon possession, convicted of first-degree assault.
- Hill indicted for second-degree assault and third-degree weapon possession for striking with a hammer; acquitted of weapon possession, convicted of second-degree assault.
- Trial courts instructed that weapon possession requires possession, know ledge, operability, and unlawful intent to use; assault requires causing injury with a deadly/dangerous instrument and intent to injure.
- Appellate Division affirmed Hill and Muhammad convictions, rejecting repugnancy; relied on interpretation that possession and assault can occur at different times or states of mind.
- The majority adopts Tucker-based theoretical repugnancy analysis, allowing non-identical temporal intents; concludes no legal repugnancy in these cases.
- Dissent argues under Tucker the acquittals negate essential elements of the assaults, constituting repugnancy and reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdicts are legally repugnant under Tucker. | People argues not repugnant; instructions allow evolving mens rea. | Muhammad and Hill argue repugnant because acquittal on weapon possession denies essential element of assault. | Not repugnant; Tucker analysis supports validity. |
| Did Appellate Division properly apply Tucker or rely on factual proofs to sustain verdicts? | App.Div correctly reconciled with theory of possession and assault. | App.Div erred by factoring actual evidence to justify verdicts instead of theoretic elements. | App.Div’s result upheld; Tucker framework applied correctly, though dissentes approach differs. |
| Was the denial of expert eyewitness identification testimony an abuse of discretion? | Abney/LeGrand standards require expert testimony where sole eyewitness and lack of corroboration exist. | Witness knew Muhammad; expert testimony unnecessary and would not have affected defense. | Not an abuse of discretion; testimony properly denied. |
| Remand on Hill suppression issue. | Exigent circumstances supported suppression ruling. | appellate ground of denial improperly addressed non-decided issue. | Remand to consider suppression issues properly raised. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1 (1981) (establishes repugnancy standard: inherently inconsistent verdicts analyzed by elements, not facts)
- United States v Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (federal repugnancy view: unreviewable jury discretion; no federal review of repugnancy)
- People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 (2000) (teaches Tucker-based repugnancy analysis; focuses on elements, not deliberations)
- People v Haymes, 34 NY2d 639 (1974) (notion of continuing possession; later intrinsic issues in repugnancy context)
- People v Afrika, 291 AD2d 880 (2002) (illustrates timing/possession considerations in repugnancy)