Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), rendered January 2, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). Defendant engaged in a pattern of physically abusing his five-week-old son, which culminated in an incident where he slammed his son onto his crib mattress five times with great force, and then held him in a choke hold. These acts, which created a grave risk of serious physical injury or death to the child, evinced a depraved indifference to human life (see Penal Law § 125.25[4]; People v. Bowman, 48 A.D.3d 178, 847 N.Y.S.2d 536 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 808, 857 N.Y.S.2d 42, 886 N.E.2d 807 [2008] ). Defendant's attempts to revive the child and obtain help may have shown a lack of homicidal intent, but they did not undermine the jury's finding that he acted with depraved indifference at the time he inflicted the fatal injuries.
The court did not violate defendant's right to free exercise of his religion when it prohibited him from displaying his Bible in the presence of the jury, an act that would have posed the risk of evoking sympathy. The compelling interest of guaranteeing a fair trial to both sides justified the court's incidental restriction on defendant's religious practices (see La Rocca v. Lane, 37 N.Y.2d 575, 582-584, 376 N.Y.S.2d 93, 338 N.E.2d 606 [1975], cert. denied 424 U.S. 968, 96 S.Ct. 1464, 47 L.Ed.2d 734 [1976]; People v. Bryant, 280 A.D.2d 403, 720 N.Y.S.2d 500 [2001], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 826, 729 N.Y.S.2d 446, 754 N.E.2d 206 [2001] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: September 16, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)