NORWICH— It was Fri., Dec. 27, 2013 at approximately 6:45 a.m. when the Chenango County Sheriff's Office received a 911 call reporting a female had been assaulted and robbed outside her residence.
Now, almost one year later, William H. Danielson, 49, Norwich, is awaiting trial for allegedly murdering his ex-girlfriend, Lucinda Knoll, in front of their seven-year-old son.
Danielson was indicted for two counts of murder in the second degree, a class A-1 violent felony; robbery in the first degree, a class B felony; assault in the first degree, a class B felony; and assault in the second degree, a class D felony.
It is alleged that on Dec. 27, 2013 at approximately 6:30 a.m., Danielson intentionally caused Knoll’s death by striking her in the head numerous times. It is also alleged Danielson forcibly stole property from Knoll.
Danielson pleaded not guilty.
Danielson appeared in Chenango County Court on Fri., Nov. 7 before Judge Frank B. Revoir, Jr. He had pre-trial hearings scheduled in preparation for his trial next year. Danielson is currently remanded at the Chenango County Correctional Facility.
Danielson's private lawyer, James A. Baker, made a motion to suppress statements made by the defendant since he claimed the statements were not adequate. Revoir moved for preclusion, not suppression, and reserved on his decision.
District Attorney Joseph A. McBride handed Baker a thick stack of papers and a CD recording and said he was ready to proceed with the Mapp hearing, which is a pretrial hearing held to determine whether or not to suppress a piece of evidence that is going to be presented at trial.
McBride called Lieutenant Richard Cobb as a witness. Before Cobb could make it to the stand, he was stopped when Baker interrupted and addressed Revoir.
“Judge, he just handed me a stack of papers here. It's what? 1,000 pages? I need sufficient time to go through them before he calls a witness,” said Baker.
“Judge, we don't say things we don't know. We only say things we do know. The only additional evidence there is an audio recording for the application for the search warrant. The rest is 720 pages of medical records of the victim,” said McBride.
Baker said he wanted time to review the recording before Cobb's testimony to prepare questions for a cross examination. McBride said he only needed five minutes to listen to it.
Revoir called a 15 minute recess for Baker to listen to the recording.
“I would like to make application that the hearing not take place in public. I am concerned there will be prejudice against my client and it will affect his right to a fair trial,” said Baker.
“Judge, we can handle those issues without the details being made public,” said McBride. “Without saying what the text said, there was a text from the defendant to the victim on August of 2013. I think the text is very relevant to the defendant’s intent,” said McBride.
McBride said there was an ongoing dispute between Danielson and Knoll. He also said Danielson was “very mad and upset, because he felt family court had failed him [regarding his son].”
“I am denying your application, Mr. Baker, to have the hearing in private. I am denying it again,” said Revoir.
Baker said he did not object to family court proceedings being used as evidence, as long as there were no specific allegations.
McBride said there would be no specific allegations, he just wanted to use the evidence to show there was motive because of the “contentious relationship between the defendant and victim.”
Cobb was then sworn in to give his testimony. He has been with the Chenango County Sheriff's Office for 16 and a half years, and he is the road patrol supervisor and detective supervisor.
Cobb said he received a phone call at approximately 7 a.m. on Dec. 27, 2013. He responded to 110 Bourbon St. in the Town of Norwich.
“Lucinda was laying in the snow on the ground next to her car. There was blood at the scene. There were footprints found leading from the residence to County Rd. 32. There were spots of blood in the footprints,” said Cobb.
Cobb said the footprints led to an auto garage and that there were tire tracks in the area, leaving the auto garage. Approximately one mile down the road at the intersection of Preston Center Rd. and County Rd. 4, there was a one-car property accident. A pick-up truck had struck a utility poll, and there was no one at the scene.
“Chief Angelino of the Norwich City Police Department said Lucinda had recently had domestic issues with Mr. Danielson, her ex-boyfriend. There had been an order of protection issued, but it had expired. The plates on the pick-up from the accident were registered to him,” said Cobb.
According to Cobb, the pick-up truck from the accident had a lot of damage and was left inoperable. Two New York State troopers followed footprints from the accident to Danielson's residence on County Rd. 4. They said they saw Danielson putting something in his wood stove before walking back into his house.
“Were the footprints at the accident the same as the footprints found on Bourbon St.?” said McBride.
Baker objected and said he was leading the witness. Revoir overruled. “They appeared to be the same,” said Cobb.
Cobb said he requested search warrants and when doing a search, found firearms in Danielson's residence, which he took from the home.
After McBride finished questioning Cobb, Baker asked him more about his role as a supervisor and how much he had seen or heard first hand.
“Much of the information was relayed to you through channels. Nothing you got directly?” said Baker to Cobb. “Yes, that is correct.” said Cobb.
“Isn't it true the boy said ‘a man’ took her workbag?” said Baker to Cobb. Cobb said yes. “He also said it wasn't his father who attacked his mother, correct?” said Baker to Cobb. Cobb said yes.
“Did you say the defendant put 'something' in his wood stove?” said Baker to Cobb. “Yes, that is what I was told,” said Cobb.
Baker presented Cobb with a report written by Det. Kevin Powell. “Det. Powell said he put wood in his stove?” Baker asked.
“Whether he saw him putting boots or wire or wood or other things that were later found in the wood stove, what does it matter? You've asked him. He remembers being told ‘something,’ said McBride. “He is trying to impeach the witness but you cannot do that on another officer's testimony. Whether or not another officer used a different word is irrelevant.”
“Judge, I am just asking if the document refreshes his recollection,” said Baker.
“Does your recollection change?” said Revoir to Cobb. “No, it does not.” said Cobb.
Baker gave Cobb an eight-page warrant application he had written last year. Baker told Cobb to read the statement following three paragraphs of allegations, written in all caps in the warrant request. Cobb read the statement and said, “The following represent the grounds for my belief.”
Baker said Cobb had also written that the defendant and the victim “we're involved in an altercation that led to assault and serious injury.”
Baker asked Cobb if he was there to see the altercation. Cobb said he was not. McBride objected and said Baker was being argumentative, because investigators are always at the scene after a crime takes place. Baker said that Cobb needed to give a source for the information that led to his belief about what took place.
McBride took over questioning Cobb and asked him if the information he received was from sworn officers and emergency responders. Cobb agreed it was. McBride then asked him to list some of the officers that gave him information, and Cobb listed eight or more officers.
“Is it true that the boy said 'the only person who would ever hurt my mother is my father'?” said McBride to Cobb. Cobb said it was true.
“And is it true the seven-year-old was wrong on some things? Would that be fair?” said McBride to Cobb. Baker objected.
McBride said to Revoir, “Judge, he brought it up.” Revoir overruled.
McBride said the boy had thought his mother was stabbed, but it was found to not be the case and Cobb agreed.
“And he said he was in the car during the attack so she would have been behind him, correct?” said McBride to Cobb. “And because of the time it would have been hard for him to see, correct?” added McBride. Cobb agreed to both statements and said, “Yes, it was fairly dark.”
McBride rested and requested the trial be put on the calendar for Jan. 5 of next year. He also asked Revoir to strike the motion for any psychiatric defense. “I have not received any medical or psychiatric records for the defendant. I don't want to scramble the last minute,” said McBride.
Baker said he the notice was done in a timely manner and McBride has plenty of time to do an examination. “He can't request the trial be on Jan. 5 and then say he doesn't have time,” said Baker.
“The notice was not timely. The time does not start over just because of new counsel,” said McBride.
Revoir said he is going to reserve on the motion to strike psychiatric defense and the motion to preclude the defendant’s statements. “This is the first case on the agenda though, for the beginning of the trial term next year,” said Revoir.
Revoir will decide on the motions before the end of the year.
Danielson's trial will take place next year.