You are here: / Parental Rights Termination Based Upon Mental Illness Reversed—Psychologist’s R...

Search Results

/ ,

Parental Rights Termination Based Upon Mental Illness Reversed—Psychologist’s Report Included Inadmissible Hearsay

The Third Department reversed Family Court’s determination that mother’s parental rights should be terminated based upon her mental illness. The psychologist’s (Liotta’s) report, upon which Family Court based its ruling, should not have been admitted in evidence because it included inadmissible hearsay:

Pursuant to the professional reliability exception to the hearsay rule, an expert witness may rely on information that would otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay “if it is of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion or if it comes from a witness subject to full cross-examination on the trial” … .  While some of the individuals with whom Liotta spoke testified during the hearing and were thus subject to cross-examination, several others did not.  Liotta was not asked and offered no opinion as to whether the information he gleaned from the interviews with individuals who did not testify was professionally accepted as reliable in performing mental health evaluations.  Respondent objected on hearsay grounds to Liotta’s testimony about these interviews and to the admission of his report – which contained detailed accounts of each interview – but the court overruled these objections.  Moreover, when respondent’s counsel sought to ask about the effect of the collateral source interviews on his opinions, the court precluded him from doing so.  As a result, no proper foundation was laid for the admission of Liotta’s testimony or his report… . Matter of Dakota F …, 513066, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

/ ,

Accomplice Testimony Corroboration Insufficient Under Law Read to Jury

Even though the evidence of corroboration of accomplice testimony was sufficient under People v Reome, 15 NY3d 188 [2010], the Court of Appeals held it was not sufficient under the stricter criteria of People v Hudson, 51 NY2d 233 [1980] which Reome overruled. Because the jury was read the Hudson criteria, that criteria applied and the evidence of corroboration was not sufficient to support conviction:

Under the Hudson standard, the corroborating evidence was insufficient.  The evidence that was “independent” of the accomplice testimony in the Hudson sense proved, at most, that defendant had driven a minivan that was the same color as a car that was used to commit some of the crimes charged.  This by itself did not tend “to connect the defendant with the commission” of the crimes (CPL 60.22 [1]).  People v Rodriguez, 169, CtApp 10-17-13

 

/ ,

Failure to Move to Dismiss Indictment on Speedy Trial Grounds Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—Inexcusable Post-Indictment Delay Required Dismissal

The Third Department determined defense counsel’s failure to move to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring that defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea be granted, and the postindictment delay, for which the People had no adequate excuse, required that the indictment be dismissed:

A Washington County grand jury handed up a four-count sealed indictment in October 2011 charging defendant with criminal sale and possession of controlled substances occurring in September and November 2010.  An arrest warrant was issued and provided to the State Police, who for well over six months were reportedly unable to locate defendant, who had relocated, until he was arrested during a traffic stop in Chautauqua County, where he had been residing.  He was arraigned on the indictment on June 14, 2012. * * *

…[D]efendant’s ineffectiveness of counsel claim was preserved by his motion to withdraw his plea and adequately alleges that it impacted the voluntariness of his plea and appeal waiver, so as to survive both … .  Thus, we address defendant’s speedy trial claim in the context of ascertaining whether he was deprived of meaningful representation, mindful that “[a] single error of failing to raise a meritorious speedy trial claim [may be] sufficiently egregious to amount to ineffective assistance of counsel” … . * * *

The People’s fleeting description of the efforts made to locate defendant fell far short of “all reasonable efforts to enforce judicially issued warrants” … required to satisfy the “due diligence” standard (CPL 30.30 [4] [c] [i]).  As such, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing the statutory exclusion for this postindictment prereadiness delay … . Accordingly, all of this unready time would be chargeable to the People … . People v Devino, 105441, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

/ ,

Leading Questions and Elicitation of Hearsay in Grand Jury Proceedings Did Not Constitute Prosecutorial Misconduct

The Third Department reversed County Court and determined leading questions and elicitation of hearsay in the grand jury proceedings did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct:

“Dismissal of an indictment pursuant to CPL 210.35 (5) is a drastic, exceptional remedy and should thus be limited to those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the [g]rand [j]ury” … .  Contrary to County Court’s finding, the record as a whole does not reveal a “pervasive mishandling” of the manner in which this case was presented to the grand jury.  To the extent that the prosecutor asked leading questions or elicited hearsay testimony from the various witnesses, we note that “not every improper comment, elicitation of inadmissible testimony, impermissible question or mere mistake renders an indictment defective.  [Rather], the submission of some inadmissible evidence [typically] will be deemed fatal only when the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain the indictment” … .  Inasmuch as we are satisfied – based upon our review of the grand jury minutes – that there otherwise is legally sufficient (and admissible) evidence to sustain count 1 of the indictment, the isolated instances of hearsay testimony, which were accompanied by appropriate limiting instructions, do not warrant dismissal thereof … .  We similarly are persuaded that the prosecutor’s limited use of leading questions did not impair the integrity of the grand jury proceeding… . People v Miller, 105721, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

/

Plea Allocution Insufficient—Plea Vacated in Absence of Motion to Withdraw or Vacate

The Third Department determined defendant’s guilty plea was invalid (based on the allocution) and vacated it in the absence of a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction:

As the record before us does not indicate that defendant ever actually entered a guilty plea pursuant to the plea agreement, we reverse.   While defense counsel indicated that it was defendant’s “intent[]” to do so, after County Court had recited the terms of the plea agreement, which defendant indicated he had “heard,” defendant never actually admitted his guilt in any manner and did not enter a valid plea.  The plea allocution simply does not reflect that defendant “understood the nature of the charge against him . . . and voluntarily entered into such plea” .. .  Further, while defendant “was not required to recite the elements of his crime or engage in a factual exposition,” County Court did not pose any questions, read the count of the indictment, or explain the crime (or its elements) to which he was entering a plea, so as to “establish the elements of the crime” … ; nor did defendant provide “unequivocal . . . responses” or “indicate[] that he was entering the plea because he was, in fact, guilty” … .

While defendant did not move to withdraw the plea (and we have no indication on this record that defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction) so as to preserve his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution … , we find it appropriate to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction and reverse given, in part, that defense counsel may have been dissuaded from making such a motion by County Court’s advisement to defendant during the plea colloquy that if he violated the conditions of his release he “will not be permitted to withdraw [his] plea of guilty.”  Thus, we find that the plea was invalid. People v Beniquez, 104692, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

/

No Evidence Defendant Agreed to Adjournment—Indictment Dismissed on Speedy Trial Grounds

In reversing County Court and dismissing the indictment on speedy trial grounds, the Third Department noted there was no evidence the defense agreed to an adjournment during the period another criminal proceeding against the defendant was ongoing:

There is no support in the record for the People’s unsubstantiated claim that “it was agreed and understood” that defendant consented to an adjournment or waiver from March 27, 2009 until July 17, 2009.  “Adjournments consented to by the defense must be clearly expressed to relieve the People of the responsibility for that portion of the delay” … .  “While a defendant may waive rights under CPL 30.30, the record here contains no evidence of any waiver, written or oral,” and the Court of Appeals has made clear that “prosecutors would be well advised to obtain unambiguous written waivers in situations like these” … . As the People failed to meet their burden of proving that the disputed 112-day period was not chargeable to them …, the People did not establish that they were ready for trial within the statutory six-month period (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]).  Therefore, defendant was entitled to dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30. People v Smith, 104091, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

/ ,

People Failed to Prove Seizure of Cocaine at Police Station Was Not the Fruit of the Illegal Arrest—Attenuation Not Demonstrated

The Third Department determined the People failed to prove that the cocaine seized from the defendant at the police station after his arrest was not the product of the earlier illegal arrest of the defendant (fruit of the poisonous tree).  At the Dunaway hearing, the People presented no witnesses concerning the seizure at the police station.  County Court’s finding that the “attenuation” doctrine supported the legitimacy of the seizure at the station was therefore not supported by the record:

Under well-established exclusionary rule principles, where police have engaged in unlawful activity – here, by arresting defendant without probable cause – evidence which is a result of the “exploitation of that illegality” is subject to suppression as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” unless one of the recognized exceptions to the exclusionary rule is applicable … .  The exception at issue here, as specifically decided by County Court thereby preserving the issue for appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2]…), is attenuation, that is, whether the production of the cocaine evidence during defendant’s illegal detention resulted from the exploitation of that illegality, directly or derivatively … .  The focus of the attenuation exception is “on the presence or absence of ‘free will’ or voluntariness regarding a defendant’s . . . acts which follow illegal police conduct; thus, the attenuation inquiry resolves whether the causal connection between the police misconduct and the later discovery of the challenged evidence is so far removed as to dissipate the taint” … .  “That determination requires consideration of the temporal proximity of the arrest and [acquisition of evidence] . . ., the presence of intervening circumstances and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct” … .

Given the complete lack of testimony at the Dunaway hearing regarding the post-illegal-arrest incident at the police station – including any intervening circumstances – in which cocaine evidence was reportedly seized from defendant’s person, we find that the People failed to satisfy their burden of proving the applicability of the attenuation exception.  That is, the People did not prove that the evidence was not acquired by exploiting the illegal arrest but, rather, came about by means “sufficiently distinguishable from [the illegality] to be purged of illegality” … . Thus, County Court’s finding of attenuation is not supported by the hearing record.   People v Small, 103485, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

/ ,

Emergency Doctrine Applied—Statements Made to Police and Overheard by Police Not Suppressible

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of motions to suppress certain statements made by the defendant to the police and to a friend in the presence of the police under the emergency doctrine. [The concurring judge felt the emergency was over when defendant spoke to his friend and his prior request for counsel rendered those statements suppressible. The majority held that the conversation with the friend was not police interrogation because there was no police involvement and the conversation was not a ploy by the police to elicit information from the defendant.] When the police encountered the defendant his clothes had wet blood on them and blood was found in defendant’s vehicle. The emergency doctrine applied because the police were justified in questioning the defendant to determine if someone was injured and needed help:

As a general rule, a person who is in custody cannot be questioned without first receiving Miranda warnings or after the right to counsel attaches … .  There are exceptions to these principles, one of which is referred to as the “emergency doctrine” … . It recognizes that the Constitution “is not a barrier to a police officer seeking to help someone in immediate danger” …, thereby excusing or justifying otherwise impermissible police conduct that is an objectively reasonable response to an apparently exigent situation … .  We have explained that the exception is comprised of three elements: (1) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief must be grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search must not be primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched … .  People v Doll, 141, CtApp 10-17-13

 

/ ,

Insufficient Evidence to Warrant Jury Charge on Intoxication Defense

The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s rape conviction finding that defendant presented insufficient evidence to warrant a jury charge on the intoxication defense:

Although intoxication is not a defense to a criminal offense, a defendant may offer evidence of intoxication whenever relevant to negate an element of the charged crime (see Penal Law § 15.25).  An intoxication charge should be issued when, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to defendant …, “there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to [an] element . . . on that basis” … .  In order to meet this “relatively low threshold,” defendant must present evidence “tending to corroborate his claim of intoxication, such as the number of drinks, the period of time between consumption and the event at issue, whether he consumed alcohol on an empty stomach, whether his drinks were high in alcoholic content, and the specific impact of the alcohol upon his behavior or mental state” … .

Here, the evidence was insufficient to allow a reasonable juror to harbor a doubt concerning the element of intent on the basis of intoxication.  Defendant’s bare assertions concerning his intoxication were, by themselves, insufficient … .  Nor did his statement to police and the victim’s testimony that she smelled alcohol on his breath corroborate defendant’s claim.  While he may, indeed, have consumed alcohol prior to the events leading up to the crimes alleged, the evidence established that defendant’s conduct was purposeful.  He cut a hole in a screen to gain entry, instructed the victim to be quiet, threw a blanket over her head, and stole her cell phone so she could not call the police.  Given this evidence, the court correctly ruled an intoxication charge was not warranted. People v Beaty, 148, CtApp 10-17-13

 

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