The following excerpt is from People v. Hall, 460 N.E.2d 224, 472 N.Y.S.2d 83, 61 N.Y.2d 654 (N.Y. 1983):
In this case the jury could reasonably have concluded that the role played by defendant in the criminal transaction was of a significantly lower level of criminal culpability than that of either of his two codefendants. The evidence would have supported conclusions that at the outset he was asleep and not an initiator, but awakened to find himself in the middle of an ongoing enterprise; that he did not cover his face with stockings as did his two codefendants; that he did not wield a metal pipe in the victim's face as did one of his codefendants or threaten to hurt her as did both of them; and that he did not participate, as did the others, in discussions as to beating up the victim's companion or in throwing him out of the car. These substantial dissimilarities in the evidence would have suggested defense strategies and trial tactics for defendant quite different from those for the two codefendants. (People v. Baffi, 49 N.Y.2d 820, 427 N.Y.S.2d 615, 404 N.E.2d 737.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.