You are here: / Constitutional Law
, ,

Judge’s Mistrial Order Precluded Retrial—Double Jeopardy

In precluding a retrial on double jeopardy grounds after the trial judge ordered a mistrial over defendant’s objection (granting the Article 78 prohibition petition), the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

In a jury trial, once the jury is empaneled and sworn, jeopardy attaches (see CPL 40.30[1][b];..), and the defendant has a “valued right to have his [or her] trial completed by a particular tribunal” ….  ” [W]hen a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, double jeopardy will, as a general rule, bar retrial'”…. “However, the right to have one’s case decided by the first empaneled jury is not absolute, and a mistrial granted as the product of manifest necessity will not bar a retrial”… .”Manifest necessity” means “a high degree of necessity”; “the reasons underlying the grant of a mistrial must be necessitous, actual and substantial” …. ” Even if the reasons for granting a mistrial are deemed actual and substantial, the court must explore all appropriate alternatives prior to granting a mistrial'”…. Mistrials premised on the prejudicial effect of improper evidence or argument are entitled to “great deference” …, since “the Trial Judge, better than any other, . . . can detect the ambience of partiality”…. Nonetheless, the trial judge must “temper the decision whether or not to abort the trial by considering the importance to the defendant of being able, once and for all, to conclude his [or her] confrontation with society through the verdict of a tribunal he [or she] might believe to be favorably disposed to his [or her] fate” … . Matter of Taylor v Dowling, 2013 NY Slip Op 05089, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

, , ,

STATE’S USE OF A GPS DEVICE TO TRACK STATE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT, BUT THE SEARCH WAS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE ALL OF THE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS, EVEN WHEN THE EMPLOYEE WAS ON VACATION, WERE TRACKED, THE GPS EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a three-judge concurrence, determined the evidence obtained about a state employee’s movements by placing a GPS device on the employee’s car should have been suppressed in the Labor Department’s hearing (after which the employee was terminated). The Court of Appeals found that the use of the GPS device did not require a warrant, but the search in this case was unreasonable in scope:

The State of New York, suspecting that one of its employees was submitting false time reports, attached a global positioning system (GPS) device to the employee’s car. Under People v Weaver (12 NY3d 433 [2009]) and United States v Jones (565 US —, 132 S Ct 945 [2012]), the State’s action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions. We hold that the search did not require a warrant, but that on the facts of this case it was unreasonable. * * *

While the search did not require a warrant, it did not comply with either the State or Federal Constitution unless it was a reasonable search. We conclude that the State has failed to demonstrate that this search was reasonable. * * *

Where an employer conducts a GPS search without making a reasonable effort to avoid tracking an employee outside of business hours, the search as a whole must be considered unreasonable. That conclusion concededly requires suppression of the GPS evidence here; the State has disclaimed any reliance on the balancing test that we use when deciding whether to invoke the suppression remedy in administrative proceedings .. . . Matter of Cunningham v New York State Dept. of Labor,
2013 NY Slip Op 04838 [21 NY3d 515], CtApp 6-27-13

 

,

Closure of Railroad Crossing Did Not Constitute a Taking of Claimant’s Land

The Court of Appeals determined the closure of a railroad crossing did not constitute a regulatory taking of claimant’s land.  Claimant used the crossing to move equipment from one part of his land to another:

The basis for the claim is that the State Department of Transportation required the closure of a railroad crossing that claimant had used to move equipment from one part of its land to another. The record shows that the Department ordered the closure after it determined that the crossing presented a safety hazard. It found that fast moving trains passed by frequently; that a curve in the tracks limited the distance at which a train could be seen from the crossing; that heavy, slow-moving farm equipment was being transported over the tracks; and that there was a substantial grade at the approaches to the crossing, which made it necessary for crossing vehicles to reduce their speed. In an article 78 proceeding brought by claimant, the Department’s determination was upheld as being supported by substantial evidence….

On this record, the conclusion is inescapable that the closure of the crossing was a proper exercise of the State’s police power. Moreover, claimant has failed to show the extent to which the Department’s action diminished the value of its land, and has not argued that its easement to cross the railroad tracks should be treated for these purposes as an item of property separate from the land itself. Claimant’s claim of a regulatory taking is without merit.  Island Park, LLC v State of New York, No 132, CtApp 6-26-13

 

, , , ,

Defendant May Not Be Cross-Examined About Criminal Conviction on Direct Appeal

In reversing defendant’s assault conviction, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined a defendant with a conviction pending appeal may not be cross-examined about the underlying facts of that conviction until direct appeal has been exhausted.  Judge Lippman wrote:

At trial, the defense was justification and defendant planned to testify, but the People received permission, after a Sandoval hearing, to cross-examine him about his recent rape conviction, still pending on direct appeal, as well as the underlying facts, and the sentence he received. After the People rested, defense counsel asked the court to reconsider the Sandoval ruling, objecting that an appeal of the rape conviction was pending and, therefore, cross-examination about the conviction and its underlying facts would violate defendant’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, but the court adhered to its ruling. Defendant did not testify and was convicted of third-degree assault. Subsequently, his conviction for rape was reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel, his prior attorney having failed to impeach the complainant with exculpatory hospital records…. Defendant was retried and acquitted.  * * *

…[I]n ruling that the prosecution could cross-examine defendant about the underlying facts of his rape conviction, presumably the court was not implying that defendant could not assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to those questions. However, “taking the Fifth,” is highly prejudicial as to both the instant case and the conviction pending appeal. To a jury, it appears as though defendant is admitting the truth of the leading questions posed by the prosecutor; “[i]t exerts an undeniable chilling effect upon a real ‘choice’ whether to testify in one’s own behalf” …. More problematic, defendant must invoke the Fifth Amendment as to both exculpatory and inculpatory questions to protect himself; otherwise he might waive the privilege… .  People v Cantave, No 129, CtApp 6-25-13

 

,

Conviction for Selling T-Shirts without a Vendor’s License Upheld—Constitutional Expression vs. Commercial Enterprise

The defendant was convicted of “unlicensed general vending” for selling t-shirts in New York City without a vendor’s license. In his defense the defendant argued that the vending of t-shirts with artistic images on them was constitutionally protected expression. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the determination below that the purpose of the sale was primarily utilitarian as opposed to expressive.  Judge Smith dissented because the t-shirts had been destroyed and the Court could not determine their expressive nature.  In describing the appropriate analysis as explained in a Second Circuit case, the Court of Appeals wrote:

…[T]he Second Circuit found that the relevant inquiry is whether the vendor is “genuinely and primarily engaged in artistic self-expression or whether the sale of such goods is instead a chiefly commercial exercise” … . The Court recognized that certain items, including apparel, could simultaneously contain potentially expressive and non-expressive components and, in that situation, a reviewing court must determine which purpose — expression or utility — is dominant… .  People v Lam, 95, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

,

HAIL Act Regulating Taxi Cabs and Livery Vehicles in New York City Does Not Violate Home Rule Section of State Constitution

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Piggot, held that the so-called HAIL Act, which regulates taxi cabs and livery vehicles in New York City, was not an unconstitutional special law in violation of the Home Rule Clause of the New York State Constitution because the statute benefits all New Yorkers, not just New York City residents:

At issue on this appeal is the constitutionality of chapter 602 of the Laws of 2011, as amended by chapter 9 of the Laws of 2012 (“HAIL Act”), which regulates medallion taxicabs (or “yellow cabs”) and livery vehicles, vital parts of New York City’s transportation system. The Act’s stated aim is to address certain mobility deficiencies in the City of New York, namely: the lack of accessible vehicles for residents and non-residents with disabilities; the dearth of available yellow cabs in the four boroughs outside Manhattan (“outer boroughs”), where residents and non-residents must instead rely on livery vehicles; and the sparse availability of yellow cab service outside Manhattan’s central business district. * * *

We conclude that the HAIL Act addresses a matter of substantial State concern. This is not a purely local issue. Millions of people from within and without the State visit the City annually. Some of these visitors are disabled, and will undoubtably benefit from the increase in accessible vehicles in the Manhattan central business district and in the outer boroughs. The Act is for the benefit of all New Yorkers, and not merely those residing within the City. Efficient transportation services in the State’s largest City and international center of commerce is important to the entire State. The Act plainly furthers all of these significant goals. Greater New York Taxi Association v State of New York…, Nos 98, 99, 100, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

,

Different Monetary Standards in Wicks Law (Re: Bids for Construction Contracts) for Different Regions of State Did Not Violate Home Rule Section of State Constitution

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined that the Wicks Law, as amended, did not violate the Home Rule section of the State Constitution.  The Wicks Law “requires public entities seeking bids on construction contracts to obtain ‘separate specification’ for three ‘subdivisions of the work to be performed’—generally, plumbing, electrical and HVAC…”.  Until 2008 the Wicks Law applied to all contracts which exceeded $50,000.  The 2008 amendment raised the contract-amounts and imposed different thresholds for New York City, Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties, and the 54 remaining counties.  The Home Rule section provides: “(b) Subject to the bill of rights of local governments and other applicable provisions of this constitution, the legislature:  . . .  (2) Shall have the power to act in relation to the property, affairs or government of any local government only by general law, or by special law… .”  There was no attempt to comply with the “special law” requirements.  The Court of Appeals determined that the proper test for determining whether the Home Rule section has been complied with is whether the statute relates primarily to a “matter of State concern:”

“The test is . . . that if the subject be in a substantial degree a matter of State concern, the Legislature may act, though intermingled with it are concerns of the locality… .” * * * This principle controls this case. It can hardly be disputed, and plaintiffs here do not dispute, that the manner of bidding on public construction contracts is a matter of substantial State concern. The existence of the Wicks Law itself for the last century, and of much other legislation governing public contracting (e.g., General Municipal Law § 100-a, [requiring competitive bidding]) attests to this. The very amendments of which plaintiffs complain, though they do not treat all counties alike, unquestionably affect the State as a whole.  Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc…v Smith…, No 101, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

, ,

8-Hour Break in 49 ½ Hour Interrogation Did Not Render Confession Voluntary

In a full-fledged opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined an 8-hour break and the presence of counsel, after a 491/2-hour custodial interrogation, did not render his confession to murder voluntary and reversed his conviction:

We are unwilling to draw the inference, which the People would have us make, that the eight-hour “break” between interrogation and arraignment attenuated the taint of the wrongful interrogation. Defendant’s pre- and post-arraignment statements were, despite their temporal separation, in all other ways seamlessly linked. At the end of the marathon session, the utterly spent defendant, in exchange for a lawyer to which he was absolutely entitled, agreed in a statement ultimately suppressed as coerced, to “give everybody what they want,” and when he returned to the Blue Room on the morning of the same day and faced the same interrogator across the same table, that is exactly what he did. We do not accept the hypothesis that his intervening stay in a holding pen and arraignment on the charge of murder sufficed to transform his coerced capitulation into a voluntary disclosure. By the time of defendant’s post-arraignment statements, his options would have seemed so constricted, by what he had already divulged during the earlier portion of the interrogation, as to render the intervening temporal buffer practically irrelevant. …

…[W]e reject the contention that the entry of counsel guaranteed the voluntariness of defendant’s subsequent statements …. This contention misconstrues the statement in Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 [1966]) that “[t]he presence of counsel, in all the cases before us today, would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self incrimination]. His presence would insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion” (id. at 466 [emphasis supplied]). Plainly, this language, expressly limited in its reference, was not intended to stand for the proposition that the presence of counsel will invariably be adequate as an assurance of voluntariness.  People v Guilford, No 103, CtApp, 6-4-13

SUPPRESSION

 

 

,

Retroactive Tax Credit Restrictions Violated Due Process

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, determined that the retroactive changes in the Empire Zones Program (restricting the availability of tax credits) did not, as the appellate divisions held, violate the Takings Clause, but did violate the Due Process Clause:  The Court wrote:

The purported taking here is plaintiffs’ obligation to pay tax to the State in the absence of a valid tax credit. However, “[t]he mere imposition of an obligation to pay money . . . does not give rise to a claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment” …. Federal courts have held that “[f]or retroactive taxation to be a taking, it must be ‘so arbitrary as to constrain to the conclusion that it was not the exertion of taxation'”…. The retroactive tax liability imposed in the present case cannot be characterized as so flagrant as to constitute the confiscation of property under the Takings Clause. Plaintiffs had no guarantee that they would ever recoup their business investments through the receipt of tax credits, and the New York Constitution provides that tax exemptions are freely repealable (NY Const, art XVI, § 1).  *  *  *

We now turn to that other question: whether plaintiffs’ due process rights were infringed by the statute utilizing the three factors articulated in Replan. In terms of “the taxpayer’s forewarning of a change in the legislation and the reasonableness of his reliance on the old law” (Replan, 70 NY2d at 456), the plaintiffs had no warning and no opportunity at anytime in 2008 to alter their behavior in anticipation of the impact of the 2009 Amendments. * * *The second factor, the length of the period of retroactivity, also benefits plaintiffs. * * * Regardless of whether the period of retroactivity is deemed to span 16 or 32 months, the length of retroactivity should be considered excessive and weighs against the State. * * *   On the third factor, dispositive in this case, the State fails to set forth a valid public purpose for the retroactive application of the 2009 Amendments. The legislature did not have an important public purpose to make the law retroactive.  James Square Associates LP et al v Mullen …, Nos 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, CtApp, 6-4-13

 

,

Trial Judge Can Rescind Mistrial Declaration; Retrial Okay Where Defendant Consents to Mistrial​

The Second Department determined that a trial judge can rescind a mistrial declaration and noted that a mistrial granted with the consent of the defendant does not bar retrial:

When a mistrial is declared in a criminal case without the consent, or over the objection, of the defendant, the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in section 6 of article I of the New York Constitution precludes a retrial for the same offense unless ” there is a manifest necessity for [the mistrial], or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated'”…. Conversely, when a defendant requests or consents to a mistrial, double jeopardy typically does not bar a retrial ….

The mere declaration of a mistrial does not terminate a criminal trial and thereby divest the trial court of the authority to rescind the declaration…. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the District Court did not retain the discretion to rescind its previous declaration of a mistrial prior to the discharge of the jury. Moreover, the District Court’s initial declaration of a mistrial, made without the petitioner’s consent, was rescinded and, thereafter, a mistrial was declared upon the petitioner’s consent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the petition to the extent that it did, and in barring a retrial of the petitioner on the ground of double jeopardy. Matter of Gorman v Rice, 2013 NY Slip Op 03673, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

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