You are here: / / THE COURT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT PROCURED...

THE COURT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT PROCURED BY THE PEOPLE AFTER A MISTRIAL, THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS A NULLITY, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the second superseding indictment, procured after a mistrial, was a nullity:

Before trial commenced, the People obtained a superseding indictment … . A jury trial on the superseding indictment ensued; however, after the jury was impaneled and sworn, defendant’s motion for a mistrial was granted. The People subsequently obtained a second superseding indictment … . …

… [T]he second superseding indictment is a nullity and assert, therefore, that defendant’s conviction must be reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings on the first superseding indictment. In declaring a mistrial, County Court did not dismiss the superseding indictment or authorize the People to re-present new charges to a grand jury. Accordingly, the People were limited to retrying defendant upon the superseding indictment, and the second superseding indictment was a nullity … . Where, as here, an indictment is a nullity, “any action or consequence that flowed from its filing . . . was necessarily a nullity as well”… . Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed. People v Moseley, 2019 NY Slip Op 03408, Third Dept 5-2-19

 

You might also like
Claimant Deemed an Employee Despite Independent Contractor Agreement
THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION HERE IS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA; DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT DEPORTATION BASED ON THE PLEA WAS POSSIBLE, BUT HE WAS NOT TOLD IT WAS MANDATORY; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE MAY HAVE DECIDED TO GO TO TRIAL IF HE HAD BEEN AWARE OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).
Maltreatment Finding Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
HEARING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND RELIABILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT MOTHER AND FATHER NEGLECTED THE NEWBORN WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR AMPHETAMINES AND DOCTOR-PRESCRIBED SUBUTEX; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD’S LOW BIRTH WEIGHT AND NEED FOR COMFORTING WAS RELATED TO AMPHETAMINES AS OPPOSED TO THE SUBUTEX; FATHER’S “HOSTILE” BEHAVIOR TOWARD PETITIONERS AND HIS REFUSAL TO SIGN A BIRTH CERTIFICATE WERE NOT VALID GROUNDS FOR A NEGLECT FINDING (THIRD DEPT).
MOTION FOR SEVERANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT EACH CLAIMED THE OTHER POSSESSED THE COCAINE FOUND IN THE CAR AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER TWO MENTIONS OF THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR AN ATTORNEY WHICH DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST, THE DEFENDANT STATED “THAT’S WHAT I WANT A LAWYER FOR,” HE WAS “SCARED TO TALK,” AND HE “COULD STILL COOPERATE LATER;” THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE POLICE AS A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PURPORTED WAIVER OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE WAS NOT IN WRITING... ORDER ENTERED UPON CONSENT IS NOT APPEALABLE, COERCION ARGUMENT MUST BE RAISED...