You are here: / / THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY REOPENING THE SUPPRESSION...
,

THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY REOPENING THE SUPPRESSION HEARING AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD RESTED TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO PRESENT AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS; THE “ONE FULL OPPORTUNITY” DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY IN THE “PRE-RULING” STAGE OF A SUPPRESSION HEARING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, held the suppression court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the People to reopen the suppression hearing to present another witness after the People had rested. The court subsequently denied the motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals framed the issue around the “one full opportunity” rule which precludes reopening a hearing in other contexts and decided not to extend the rule to the “”pre-ruling” stage of a suppression hearing:

In Havelka [45 NY2d 636], we applied the “one full opportunity” rule to a holding by an appellate court overturning the decision of the suppression court. In Kevin W [22 NY3d 287}. we applied the same rule to the suppression court’s decision to reopen the hearing after its ruling on the merits of the motion. Defendant now asks us to apply the rule at a point still earlier in the process, similarly restricting the suppression court’s discretion before any decision is made. This we decline to do.

A basic concern underlying both Havelka and Kevin W. is finality, described as the “haunt[ing] . . . specter of renewed proceedings” after the defendant initially has prevailed … . We explained in Havelka that allowing the People to present additional evidence at a new hearing would render success at the original suppression hearing “nearly meaningless” … . The People, we said, should not get “a second chance to succeed where once they tried and failed” … . However, that concern is absent where no decision on the motion has been rendered by the hearing court: no victory will be rendered “nearly meaningless.”

The second issue of concern weighing in favor of the “one full opportunity” rule — the risk of improperly tailored testimony at the reopened proceedings — is significantly lower where the People do not have a formal decision from either an appellate court or the hearing court. People v Cook, 2019 NY Slip Op 09059, CtApp 12-19-19

 

You might also like
Failure to Exercise Peremptory Challenge Not Ineffective Assistance
PROOF PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SUPPORT ATTEMPTED THIRD OR FOURTH DEGREE LARCENY, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).
Parking Lots Owned by a Federal-Income-Tax-Exempt Charitable Organization Formed to Facilitate Commercial Development Were Not Entitled to a Charitable Exemption from Real Property Taxes—The Parking Lots Were “Used” to Increase Commerce Which Is Not a Charitable Use Under the Real Property Tax Law
VETERINARY CLINIC MAY BE LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG IN THE CLINIC’S WAITING ROOM, BUT THE CLINIC’S LIABILITY SHOULD NOT TURN ON WHETHER THE CLINIC WAS AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, THE STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD IMPOSED ON DOG-OWNERS (CT APP).
WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.
No Need to Request Missing Witness Charge to Argue Absence of Witness to Jury
“Something” Stuck in Victim’s Back Is Legally Sufficient Evidence of Displayed Firearm
THE DNA EVIDENCE GENERATED BY THE TRUEALLELE CASEWORK SYSTEM WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; THE DEFENSE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE TRUEALLELE SOFTWARE CODE EITHER IN CONNECTION WITH THE FRYE HEARING OR TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST DEFENDANT; THE CONCURRENCE STATED WHETHER THE CODE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE UNDER A PROTECTIVE ORDER REMAINED AN OPEN QUESTION (CT APP).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LOAN FUNDED BY THE PROCEEDS OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING IS ENFORCEABLE (CT APP). DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PURSUED AND DETAINED BASED UPON HIS DRINKING FROM A CONTAINER...