NY appeals court remits assault case for lower court ruling

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has sent an assault case back to the lower court to have the judge rule on a motion seeking a review of the grand jury minutes.

Defendant William L. Houle was convicted in February 2023 before Ontario County Court Judge Frederick G. Reed, of second-degree assault.

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, reserved decision, ordered the case held, and sent the matter back to Ontario County Court.

Houle physically assaulted his daughter’s boyfriend with a brick and baseball bat.

His appellate attorney, Bradley E. Keem, argued that Reed should have ordered a competency hearing for Houle, but the Fourth Department disagreed.

The decision on whether to hold a competency examination “lies within the sound discretion of the court,” the Fourth Department wrote.

When reviewing a court’s determination for an abuse of discretion, the key question is: Did the judge receive information which, objectively considered, should reasonably have raised a doubt about the defendant’s competency and alerted the judge to the possibility that the defendant could neither understand the proceedings nor appreciate their significance, nor rationally aid their attorney in the defense, according to the decision.

“There is no indication in the record that defendant was unable to understand the proceedings or that he was mentally incompetent,” the court ruled.

The court also disagreed with Houle’s contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

“The contention was unpreserved for our review because defendant made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal,” the Fourth Department found.

“Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, we necessarily review the evidence adduced as to each of the elements of the crime in the context of our review of defendant’s challenge regarding the weight of the evidence,” the court wrote.

“Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence,” the court wrote.

The court also rejected the contention that Houle received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Keem argued that Houle’s trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to adduce testimony about Houle’s medical status and his alleged inability to physically participate in the assault, according to the decision.

“That contention involves matters outside the record and must be raised by way of a (Criminal Procedure Law) Article 440 motion,” the court wrote.

The court ruled that Keem failed to meet his burden of demonstrating “the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for the allegedly deficient conduct.”

But the Fourth Department found that Reed erred in failing to rule on that part of the omnibus motion seeking inspection of the grand jury minutes and dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the grand jury proceeding was defective.

The court’s failure to issue a ruling on that part of the motion cannot be considered a denial of the motion, the court found.

“We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a ruling on that part of the omnibus motion,” the court wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035