Constitutional Law – Page 22 – New York Appellate Digest

WHERE DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS INNOCENCE AT TRIAL, HAS A PENDING APPEAL AND ASSERTS HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE SORA PROCEEDING, THE SORA COURT SHOULD NOT ASSESS POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 12 FOR FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt, reversing the SORA court, in a matter of first impression, determined that where defendant asserted his innocence at trial, has a pending appeal, and has asserted his right to avoid self-incrimination, he should not be assessed points under risk factor 12 for failing to take responsibility for the relevant offense:

… [W]e conclude that a defendant who has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and has a direct appeal pending should not be assessed points under risk factor 12. Considering this conclusion, and in view of defendant’s consistent refusal to incriminate himself and the pending status of his direct appeal, the assessment of 10 points under this factor amounts to a violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. * * *

… [D]efendant was forced to choose between, on the one hand, exercising his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and being assessed points under risk factor 12, and, on the other, admitting responsibility for the acts that led to his conviction after so far maintaining his innocence and risking that those admissions would be used against him in a potential retrial or form the basis of a perjury charge. Ultimately, the penalty imposed on defendant when presented with this choice is that he was assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 and adjudicated a risk level two sex offender.

The difference between a level one and level two sex offender adjudication is substantial and illustrative of why the penalty is so great as to compel self-incrimination. If defendant were classified as a level one sex offender, he would be required to register annually for a period of 20 years from the date of initial registration (see Correction Law § 168-h), but his personal information would not be listed in a publicly available database. However, as a level two sex offender, defendant would be required to register annually for life (see Correction Law § 168-h), and his photograph, address, place of employment, physical description, age, and distinctive markings would be included in a public database (see Correction Law § 168-q). People v Krull. 2022 NY Slip Op 04783, First Dept 8-2-22

Practice Point: Here defendant asserted his innocence at trial, had a pending appeal and asserted his right against self-incrimination in the SORA proceedings. The SORA court should not have assessed points under risk factor 12 for failure to take responsibility for the offense.

August 2, 2022

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

THE PEOPLE WERE CHARGED WITH THE DELAY IN RESPONDING TO DEFENDANT’S OMNIBUS MOTION ENTITLING DEFENDANT TO RELEASE ON BAIL PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s habeas corpus petition seeking release on bail based upon the speedy-trial statute should have been sustained:

When making a motion pursuant to CPL 30.30(2)(a) to be released on bail or his or her own recognizance, a defendant who has been committed to the custody of the sheriff has the initial burden of demonstrating, by sworn allegations of fact, that there has been an inexcusable delay beyond the time set forth in the statute … . Once a defendant has alleged that more than the statutorily prescribed time has elapsed without a declaration of readiness by the People, the People bear the burden of establishing sufficient excludable delay … . The burden is on the People “to ensure, in the first instance, that the record of the proceedings . . . is sufficiently clear to enable the court considering the . . . CPL 30.30 motion to make an informed decision as to whether the People should be charged” with any delay … .

… [T]he petitioner adequately raised before the Supreme Court the issue of whether the People should be charged with their delay in responding to the defendant’s omnibus motion. … [B]ecause the People did not seek and receive an extension of time to respond to the omnibus motion, or provide any explanation for the delayed response, they are “chargeable with the time between the court-imposed deadline to respond to the omnibus motion and the date on which the People actually filed a response” … . Here, the 13 days chargeable to the People due to their unexplained delay in responding to the omnibus motion, when coupled with the 86 days between the date of arraignment and the date upon which the People filed their certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL 245.50, totals more than 90 days … . People v Molina, 2022 NY Slip Op 04778, Second Dept 7-29-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff had been incarcerated for more than the 90 days allowed by CPL 30.30 and the 13-day delay occasioned by the People’s failure to timely respond to defendant’s omnibus motion was not adequately explained. Therefore defendant’s habeas corpus petition was sustained and he was entitled to release on bail which he is capable of meeting or on his own recognizance.

July 29, 2022

Appeals, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Evidence

ON REMAND FROM THE US SUPREME COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WAS HARMLESS ERROR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, on remand from the US Supreme Court, determined the evidentiary error was harmless and affirmed defendant’s conviction. The defendant was convicted of murder. The plea allocution of Morris, who was initially prosecuted for the same murder (but exonerated by DNA evidence). was allowed in evidence in defendant’s trial, a violation of defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. The Court of Appeals held the evidence against defendant was overwhelming rendering the violation of defendant’s right of confrontation harmless:

… “[T]here is no reasonable possibility” that the erroneously admitted plea allocution “might have contributed to defendant’s conviction” (People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]). The plea allocution neither exculpated Morris nor inculpated defendant as the shooter, thus allowing defendant to argue to the jury that Morris was the perpetrator. Indeed, it merely supported a conclusion that Morris possessed a .357 magnum revolver on the day in question, and [a witness] had already testified to that alleged fact. … [T]he prosecutor’s reliance on the plea was exceedingly minimal. Under these circumstances and in light of the other, overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, the error below was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” (id. at 237, citing Chapman v California , 386 US 18 [1967]). People v Hemphill, 2022 NY Slip Op 04663, CtApp 7-21-22

Practice Point: It is worth remembering that even a constitutional error, here the violation of defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him, is subject to a harmless-error analysis.

July 21, 2022

Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Family Law

THE THREE-DAY FACT-FINDING HEARING RELATED TO THE NEGLECT PETITION RE: SERENA, NOT THE NEWLY-FILED DERIVATIVE NEGLECT PETITION RE: VINCENT; FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY CONSOLIDATED THE TWO PETITIONS FOR THE DISPOSITIONAL HEARING DEPRIVING MOTHER OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court never held a hearing on the newly filed derivative neglect petition (re: Vincent). The three-day fact-finding hearing related only to the neglect petition (re: Serena). At the subsequent dispositional hearing, the court improperly consolidated the two petitions:

The right to due process encompasses a “meaningful opportunity to be heard” at a fact-finding hearing on a neglect petition … , and to “present evidence relevant to the proceedings” … . Accordingly, the proceeding with respect to Vincent must be remitted to the Family Court … for a fact-finding hearing, in order to afford the parties an opportunity to introduce evidence relevant to the petition to adjudicate Vincent a derivatively neglected child, including, among other things, whether at the time the neglect petition was filed with respect to Vincent the mother had resolved the issues that were the basis of the finding of neglect as to Serena … . Matter of Serena G. (Monica M.), 2022 NY Slip Op 04547, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Here the court held a hearing which was confined to the neglect petition re: Serena and did not address the newly-filed derivative neglect petition re: Vincent. By combining the two petitions for the dispositional hearing mother was deprived of an opportunity to be heard (due process) on the derivative neglect petition.

July 13, 2022

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Evidence

THE CJA FORM WAS PUT IN EVIDENCE TO PROVE WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED, WHICH WAS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL-POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CHARGE; BUT THE CJA EMPLOYEE WHO TESTIFIED WAS NOT THE EMPLOYEE WHO CREATED THE DOCUMENT; BECAUSE THE CJA EMPLOYEE COULD NOT BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE DOCUMENT, ITS ADMISSION VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) form which indicated defendant lived where the weapon (the subject of the criminal-possession-of-a-weapon charge) was found constituted testimonial evidence which violated the Confrontation Clause. The witness through whom the form was admitted in evidence did not create the form and, therefore, could not be cross-examined about its contents:

… [T]he testimony of the CJA employee and the CJA form were admitted in order to establish an essential element of the charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, in violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation … . The defendant was never given the opportunity to cross-examine the CJA employee who prepared the CJA form, and, in admitting the CJA form through an employee who did not prepare the form, the Supreme Court failed to ensure that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was protected … . People v Franklin, 2022 NY Slip Op 04308, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here a document was admitted into evidence to prove where defendant lived, which was an element of the criminal-possession-of-a-weapon charge. Because the person who created the document did not testify and therefore could not be cross-examined about its contents, defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him was violated. New trial ordered.

July 6, 2022

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

THE MAJORITY HELD THAT THE SIX-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN WHEN THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE DNA EVIDENCE LINKING DEFENDANT TO THE RAPE AND DEFENDANT’S ARREST DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant was not entitled to reversal of the rape conviction based on the six-year preindictment delay. The dissenter would have reversed, finding the delay deprived defendant of due process:

In determining whether defendant was deprived of due process, we must consider the factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442 [1975]), which are: “(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay” … . * * *

There is no indication that the “delay was caused by any bad faith on the part of the People” … . Instead, the delay was largely caused by the efforts of the People and law enforcement “to acquire substantial corroborating evidence in order to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” … . Nevertheless, it is true, as defendant points out, that extensive periods of delay may fairly be attributed to neglect by the People and law enforcement in the investigation. But even assuming, arguendo, that [this] factor weighs in defendant’s favor, three of the five factors favor the People, and we thus conclude that the court did not err in denying that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to dismiss the indictment on due process grounds.

From the dissent:

The People … failed to present a valid reason for the delay … . As of September 2006, when the prosecution was made aware of DNA evidence linking defendant to the crime, the prosecutor possessed all information necessary to charge defendant, and the record reveals no reason, plan, or deliberate decision to delay defendant’s arrest until it was eventually made in January 2013. Instead, the record reflects that the explanation for the over six-year delay was simply inadvertence, which is an insufficient reason as a matter of law … . People v Stefanovich, 2022 NY Slip Op 04241, Fourth Dept 7-1-22

Practice Point: There was a six-year delay between when the People became aware of DNA evidence linking defendant to the crime and defendant’s arrest. The majority held the delay did not deny defendant of due process. The dissenter argued the People demonstrated only that the delay was the result of “inadvertence,” which is an insufficient reason.

July 1, 2022

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Evidence, Family Law, Judges

APPELLANT, 16, IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENY PROCEEDING, WAS BEING INTERROGATED ABOUT A ROBBERY WHEN HE DRANK WATER FROM A DISPOSABLE CUP; THE INTERROGATING OFFICER SENT THE CUP FOR DNA ANALYSIS; THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATORY PURPOSE FOR THE DNA COLLECTION; APPELLANT’S MOTION TO EXPUNGE THE DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, over a dissent, reversing Family Court, determined appellant’s motion to expunge all DNA evidence collected from him in this juvenile delinquency proceeding should have been granted. When appellant,16, was being interrogated by the police about a robbery, he was given a disposable cup from which he drank water. The cup was then sent by the interrogating officer for DNA analysis. No DNA had been collected from the robbery scene, so there was no investigatory purpose for collection of appellant’s DNA:

A juvenile delinquency adjudication, just as a youthful offender adjudication, is not a criminal conviction and a juvenile delinquent should not be denominated a criminal by reason of such adjudication … . A juvenile delinquent is not and should not be afforded fewer adjudication protections than a youthful offender or an adult in the equivalent circumstances … . Family Court, therefore, has the discretion to order the expungement of appellant’s DNA and any other documents related to the testing of his DNA sample. * * *

It has not been established that appellant purposefully divested himself of the cup or his DNA, thereby relinquishing his expectation of privacy. Nor has it been established that he waived, impliedly or explicitly, his constitutional rights to that expectation. * * *

DNA evidence obtained after an arrest should be material and relevant and should have a link to the charges for which the individual is arrested. There must be an articulable basis to obtain this DNA evidence and a correlation to the investigation or prosecution of the charged offense. That articulable basis to obtain appellant’s DNA is lacking here. * * *

Under the totality of the circumstances, maintaining appellant’s DNA profile in OCME’s database in perpetuity is completely incompatible with the statutory goal and would result in a substantial injustice to the appellant. Matter of Francis O., 2022 NY Slip Op 03969, First Dept 6-16-22.

Practice Point: Here the appellant was 16 when he was interrogated by the police. He drank water from a paper cup. The interrogating officer sent the cup for DNA analysis. There was no investigative purpose for the DNA collection. The appellant did not abandon the cup and did not waive his privacy interest in it. His constitutional rights were therefore violated by the collection of his DNA and he was entitled to expungement of the DNA evidence.

June 16, 2022

Animal Law, Constitutional Law

HAPPY, AN ELEPHANT IN THE BRONX ZOO, IS NOT A “PERSON” ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; THE PETITION SOUGHT HAPPY’S TRANSFER TO AN ELEPHANT SANCTUARY; TWO DISSENTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over two dissenting opinions, determined an elephant at the Bronx Zoo (Happy) was not entitled to the protection of a writ of habeas corpus. The petition sought Happy’s transfer from the zoo to an elephant sanctuary:

For centuries, the common law writ of habeas corpus has safeguarded the liberty rights of human beings by providing a means to secure release from illegal custody. The question before us on this appeal is whether petitioner Nonhuman Rights Project may seek habeas corpus relief on behalf of Happy, an elephant residing at the Bronx Zoo, in order to secure her transfer to an elephant sanctuary. Because the writ of habeas corpus is intended to protect the liberty right of human beings to be free of unlawful confinement, it has no applicability to Happy, a nonhuman animal who is not a “person” subjected to illegal detention. Thus, while no one disputes that elephants are intelligent beings deserving of proper care and compassion, the courts below properly granted the motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus … . Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Breheny, 2022 NY Slip Op 03859, CtApp 6-14-22

Practice Point: So far, sentient non-humans (like Happy, an elephant in the Bronx Zoo) are not entitled to the protection against “illegal custody” afforded by a writ of habeas corpus.

June 14, 2022

Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Judges

AFTER THE TRIAL HAD BEGUN AND WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED, THE JUDGE BECAME ILL AND SOUGHT A COVID TEST; AFTER THE NEGATIVE TEST-RESULT, THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSENT, DECLARED A MISTRIAL; THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER A CONTINUANCE OR THE SUBSTITUTION OF ANOTHER JUDGE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROHIBITION PRECLUDED RETRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department granted defendant’s petition for a writ of prohibition barring retrial on the ground of double jeopardy. A jury was selected and three witnesses had testified when the trial judge became ill and scheduled a COVID test (which came back negative). The judge ultimately, sua sponte, declared a mistrial without defendant’s consent. Because there were alternatives to a mistrial, a continuance, for example, the double-jeopardy prohibition precluded retrial:

… [T]here was no manifest necessity for the mistrial, and the court therefore abused its discretion in granting it sua sponte … . The record establishes that the court did not consider the alternatives to a mistrial, such as a continuance … or substitution of another judge … . “[I]f the judge acts so abruptly as to not permit consideration of the alternatives . . . or otherwise acts irrationally or irresponsibly . . . or solely for convenience of the court and jury . . . , retrial will be barred” … . “The court has the duty to consider alternatives to a mistrial and to obtain enough information so that it is clear that a mistrial is actually necessary” … . Matter of McNair v McNamara, 2022 NY Slip Op 03825, Fourth Dept 6-9-22

Practice Point: Here the judge became ill after the trial had begun and declared a mistrial without defendant’s consent and without considering a continuance or the substitution of another judge. There was no manifest necessity for the mistrial. The double-jeopardy prohibition therefore precluded retrial.

June 9, 2022

Constitutional Law, Religion

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).

The Third Department, on remand from the US Supreme Court, determined the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Fulton v Philadelphia [141 S Ct 1868] did not overturn the NYS Court of Appeals ruling in Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany [7 NY3d 510]. In Catholic Charities the Court of Appeals held the requirement that health insurance policies cover “medically necessary abortions” but which exempts policies provided by “religious employers” did not impair the free exercise of religion:

… Catholic Charities “is not directly inconsistent with the rationale employed by the United States Supreme Court in any subsequent case, and is thus binding on us as an intermediate appellate court” … .Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo, 2022 NY Slip Op 03550, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: The NYS Court of Appeals ruling In Catholic Charitie [7 NY3d 510] approving the requirement that health insurance policies cover “medically necessary abortions” (with an exemption for “religious employers”) was not affected by the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court in Fulton v Philadelphia [141 S Ct 1868].

June 2, 2022