You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED HIS INCARCERATED BROTHER WAS BEING HARASSED BY...
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED HIS INCARCERATED BROTHER WAS BEING HARASSED BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; HE CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THREATENED TO “BLOW AN OFFICER’S HEAD OFF” “IF THEY TOUCH MY BROTHER;” DEFENDANT’S “MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT” CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s “making a terroristic threat” conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s brother was incarcerated. Defendant was concerned that his brother was being harassed by corrections officers. Defendant allegedly called the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and said he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother:”

…”[A] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when[,] with intent to . . . affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, . . . he or she threatens to commit . . . a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense” (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Penal Law article 490 was enacted following the September 11, 2001 attacks and was “specifically designed to combat the evils of terrorism” … . Accordingly, “[t]he concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act” …  ….

… [T]he evidence fails to establish that defendant “cause[d] a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission” of an offense under the factual circumstance presented here (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Neither the first investigator nor the supervisor took any actions to warn the correctional facility or any other agency or individuals of the threat. While a notice was eventually issued, this was not done until well after the initial threat was made. None of the witnesses provided any testimony that they or anyone else had a reasonable expectation or fear that the threat would be imminently carried out, nor did their actions indicate any such belief. People v Santiago, 2022 NY Slip Op 04196, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s statement he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother” did not cause the investigators who heard the statement to expect or fear the imminent commission of the offense, which is an element of “making a terroristic threat.” Defendant’s conviction was therefore against the weight of the evidence. The decision cautions against interpreting the “terroristic threat” statute loosely.

 

You might also like
A RECENT US SUPREME COURT RULING DOES NOT AFFECT THE NYS COURT OF APPEALS RULING THAT REGULATIONS REQUIRING HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO COVER “MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTIONS” BUT WHICH EXEMPT POLICIES PROVIDED BY “RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS” DO NOT IMPAIR THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION (THIRD DEPT).
UNDER THE STIPULATED FACTS, THE DEFENDANT’S TRAGIC ERROR, MISTAKING THE VICTIM FOR A DEER, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF, A YOUTH HOCKEY PLAYER INJURED BY A TIPPING BENCH IN THE LOCKER ROOM, WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COACH OR HIS FATHER IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION (THIRD DEPT). ​
IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE THE APPLICANT’S EQUITY IN AN AUTOMOBILE, NOT ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE, MUST BE CONSIDERED, THE APPLICANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE HOW MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE WRONG ASSET-CALCULATION TECHNIQUE IN SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO INTERPRET A LOCAL ZONING LAW TO APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
SPECIAL EDUCATION PROVIDER NOT AN EMPLOYEE.
SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR STUDENT’S FALL ON SNOW-COVERED, ICY PLAYGROUND, STUDENTS TOLD TO STAY OFF PLAYGROUND.
HEARING OFFICER’S REFUSAL WITHOUT EXPLANATION TO CALL A WITNESS TO THE INCIDENT REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IF PLAINTIFF, A FOREMAN, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK BECAUSE OF RAIN, THEN... HERE THE DEFENDANT, IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, RAISED ISSUES ABOUT...