You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MENACING AT THE FIRST TRIAL BUT THE EVIDENCE...
,

DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MENACING AT THE FIRST TRIAL BUT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE MENACING CHARGES WAS ALLOWED IN THE SECOND TRIAL; THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE PRECLUDED PRESENTATION OF THAT EVIDENCE IN THE SECOND TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s acquittal of menacing in his first trial precluded evidence defendant displayed a firearm during a confrontation in the second trial:

At his second trial, the People were permitted to introduce in their case-in-chief, over defendant’s objection, the testimony of an eyewitness that, during a confrontation in a park that occurred prior to the shooting, defendant had pulled out a gun and waved it at the victim, and had cocked the gun and pointed it at the eyewitness. We agree with defendant that, under the circumstances here, the People were collaterally estopped by the earlier verdict from presenting evidence at defendant’s second trial concerning the alleged display of a gun during the earlier confrontation at the park … .

The doctrine of collateral estoppel “operates in a criminal prosecution to bar relitigation of issues necessarily resolved in defendant’s favor at an earlier trial” … . “[W]here the People have had a full and fair opportunity to contest issues, but have failed, it would be inequitable and harassive to again permit the prosecution to establish these same matters, as if the first trial had never taken place” … . Only those facts that were “necessarily decided” by a prior acquittal will have collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent prosecution … . Although it may “normally be impossible to ascertain the exact import of a verdict,” we are charged with giving “a practical, rational reading to the record of the first trial” to determine “whether a rational jury could have grounded its decision on an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration” … .

Here, the two menacing counts alleged that defendant intentionally placed or attempted to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury, or death by displaying what appeared to be a firearm, on the basis of his alleged actions at the park shortly before the murder. The eyewitness’s testimony at the first trial was the only evidence supporting the menacing counts. People v Moore, 2024 NY Slip Op 03941, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Evidence supporting charges of which defendant was acquitted in the first trial cannot be presented in the second trial.

 

You might also like
AT THE TIME THE POLICE PARKED THE POLICE CAR BEHIND THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER SUCH THAT THE DRIVER COULD NOT LEAVE THE AREA, THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Testify Before the Grand Jury
IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION CASE, THE INVESTIGATOR’S ASKING DEFENDANT WHERE HE RESIDED WAS DESIGNED TO ELICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE WAS NOT PEDIGREE INFORMATION AND A CPL 710.30 NOTICE WAS REQUIRED, ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENT WAS HARMLESS ERROR HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SEARCH WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT MEET THE PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT, THE EVIDENCE GLEANED FROM THE CELL PHONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED; KIDNAPPING SECOND DEGREE IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF KIDNAPPING SECOND DEGREE AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY, THE COUNTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DARDEN HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFORMANT WAS LEGITIMATELY UNAVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT MUST RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT CAN CONSIDER THE ISSUE, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING; THE SENTENCE IN THIS DWI CASE WAS ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF FELONY MURDER, TWO COUNTS OF ROBBERY AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BASED PRIMARILY ON HIS CONFESSION; THE ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED MINIMAL INQUIRY WHEN DEFENDANT REQUESTED NEW COUNSEL; COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST THE REDACTION OF DEFENDANT’S VIDEO STATEMENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE FELONY MURDER AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON COUNTS (FOURTH DEPT).
OWNER OF THE FARM AND HAY CONVEYOR OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS INJURED BY THE CONVEYOR, LICENSEES USING THE CONVEYOR ON OWNER’S LAND DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS A VOLUNTEER HELPING THE LICENSEES (FOURTH 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

A COUNTY RECYCLING TRUCK IS NOT ENGAGED IN ROAD WORK AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT... THE PURPOSE OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR CONTACT INFORMATION ABOUT EACH...