You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO AN ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY ABOUT...
, , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO AN ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE GUILTY PLEA ENTERED BY A NON-TESTIFYING PARTICIPANT IN THE SHOOTING (DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM); DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT REQUEST THE ACCOMPLICE JURY INSTRUCTION (WHICH REQUIRES CORROBORATION OF THE ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY) OR THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. An accomplice, Brenda, testified that another accomplice, Roberto, had pled guilty for his role in the shooting and Roberto’s cooperation agreement was placed in evidence with Brenda on the stand. Brenda also testified that defendant made incriminating statements after the shooting. Although the prosecution had informed defense counsel Roberto would be called as a witness, Roberto was not called. Defendant was therefore deprived of right to confront Roberto. In addition, the accomplice jury instruction was not requested or given and the missing witness jury instruction was not requested or given:

… [D]efense counsel failed to object to evidence elicited by the People pertaining to the guilty plea of Roberto, a nontestifying alleged accomplice, including the introduction into evidence of the cooperation agreement in which Roberto agreed to give “meaningful and truthful information” concerning the shooting. The admission of this evidence violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him … . * * *

… [D]efense counsel failed to request either an accomplice-in-law or accomplice-in-fact jury instruction with respect to Brenda’s testimony. Since accomplice testimony is “marked by obvious self-interest,” a defendant “‘may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense'” … . * * *

… [D]efense counsel failed to timely request a missing witness charge … . People v Alvarenga, 2023 NY Slip Op 03704, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: Defense counsel was deemed ineffective (1) for failing to assert defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him when an accomplice testified about a non-testifying participant in the shooting, (2) for failing to request the accomplice jury instruction, and (3) in failing to request the missing witness jury instruction.

 

You might also like
BECAUSE THE COURT DID NOT IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE PLEAS AND SENTENCING COMMITMENTS, THE SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED BASED ON THE PURPORTED VIOLATIONS OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SENTENCING, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPELLATE COURT CONSIDERED IT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 196-d AGAINST A CORPORATE OFFICER AND A SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUALLY FOR FAILING TO REMIT SERVICE CHARGES AND GRATUITIES TO THEIR WAITSTAFF EMPLOYEES; REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION TO SEEK CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).
AN OPEN MANHOLE IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
“Notwithstanding Clause” in Contract Insulated Town from Liability for Bond Payments Re: a Waste Disposal Facility
THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THAT THE CITY BUS STOPPED “VIOLENTLY,” CAUSING HER TO FALL; THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVICENCE (SECOND DEPT).
Landowners Who Have Been Granted a Variance Are Necessary Parties In an Action Challenging the Variance (CPLR 1001 (b))
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LANDOWNER FOR A SLIP AND FALL IN THE LESSEE’S SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE LANDOWNER HAD SOME REPAIR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE LEASE; ALTHOUGH THE ORIGINAL SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT DESCRIBED THE WRONG PROPERTY ADDRESS, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, SERVED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WAS TIMELY UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND 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

MOTHER WAS AWARE OF THE GROUND FOR DISQUALIFYING FATHER’S ATTORNEY FOR... ALLOWING A POLICE OFFICER TO NARRATE A VIDEO ALLEGEDLY DEPICTING THE DEFENDANT...