Medford Teen Admits to Shooting E. Patchogue Man

A Medford teen admitted in court Tuesday to shooting an East Patchogue man in 2007 while attempting to burglarize his home announced the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office.

Terraine Slide, 19, was originally convicted of shooting and killing Carleton Shaw, 38, in 2008, but had in September.

According to officials, Slide admitted in court to entering Shaw’s home, and that when leaving the home that while he had shot Shaw that he did not intend to kill him.

According to the DA Slide was sentenced to 25 years to life after the original conviction, and is expected to be sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment on June 15 at the Suffolk County Criminal Court.

As previously reported, Slide and four other teens entered Shaw's home to commit a burglary on May 8, 2007 said the DA’s office and Suffolk Police. Shaw's body was found approximately six hours after the shooting with his 3-year-old son sleeping on his chest. On August 6, 2008, Slide was convicted of murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree by a jury that deliberated for five hours.

The appellate court ruled on Sept. 28 that Slide, 19, did not receive a fair trial as a result of being questioned on cross-examination regarding two prior arrests for shoplifting and unlawful possession of marijuana and suspensions on his school disciplinary record without having the opportunity by the judge to demonstrate possible undue prejudice in a pretrial hearing.

While the jury of the case was asked to disregard questioning that related to the character of Slide's mother, the jury was not instructed to disregard the questioning related to the defendant's own previous acts said the State Supreme Court's Appellate Division in a document regarding the decision.

The court also ruled that the judge did not explain to the jurors that Slide's statements to homicide detectives were possibly made involuntarily and that the jury did not receive instructions regarding standards that could have been used to decide whether that was the case. The instructions given to the jury were to disregard the statement if the jury could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary.

The appellate division also says in its document that while the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence in the case, that "it cannot be said that there is no significant probability that the verdict would have been different absent these errors." Therefore, the court ruled that the conviction had to be reversed and a new trial ordered.