NY appeals court orders new trial in manslaughter case

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has granted a new trial in a homicide case because the judge improperly allowed the prosecution to use statements to police made by the defendant.

Defendant Andrea Lipton was convicted in June 2022 before state Supreme Court Justice Victoria M. Argento of second-degree manslaughter.

In a decision released Friday, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed the conviction, granted a defense motion to suppress statements made by Lipton after she invoked her right to remain silent, and granted a new trial.

Lipton was convicted for recklessly causing the death of her infant son, who was beaten by Lipton’s boyfriend. He was convicted of first-degree manslaughter in a separate trial.

Lipton’s appellate attorney, Ryan James Muldoon, argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish her guilt and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

“We reject those contentions,” the Fourth Department wrote.

The challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review.

“In any event …we conclude that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court wrote.

The court concluded that, “even if a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be.”

But the panel did agree with the defense argument that Argento should have suppressed statements Lipton made during a videotaped interrogation “after she repeatedly told the investigators that she had nothing more to say and was done talking,” according to the decision.

“A suspect’s right to remain silent, once unequivocally and unqualifiedly invoked, must be ‘scrupulously honored … If such an unequivocal and unqualified invocation of the right to remain silent is made, interrogation must cease,” the court wrote.

“Whether a defendant’s assertion of that right was unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to the circumstances surrounding (that assertion,) including the defendant’s demeanor, manner of expression and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant,” the court wrote.

While being interrogated by police Lipton stated to the investigators six separate times that she had “nothing else to . . . say” and that she was “done talking,” according to the decision.

“It is clear from a viewing of the interrogation video that defendant repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that she no longer wished to answer any more questions from the investigators,” the court wrote.

“There was nothing equivocal about defendant’s invocations of the right to remain silent, which were not scrupulously honored by the investigators, who continued the interrogation as if they did not hear what defendant had said,” the court wrote.

“We thus conclude that the court erred in refusing to suppress any and all statements made by defendant on Aug. 19, 2020, after 12:03 a.m. on the interrogation video,” the court wrote.

Because there is a “reasonable possibility that the erroneous admission of defendant’s inculpatory statements contributed to the verdict, the error in refusing to suppress all of those statements cannot be considered harmless, and reversal is required,” the court found.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035