You are here: / Criminal Law
,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED OUTSIDE THE HOME, HE WAS COERCED INTO TO LEAVING BY A SHOW OF FORCE BY THE POLICE; THEREFORE THE WARRANTLESS ARREST VIOLATED PAYTON; WHETHER THE TENANT’S SUBSEQUENT CONSENT TO SEARCH WAS VOLUNTARY WAS DECIDED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION USING THE WRONG CRITERIA; MATTER REMITTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a three-judge dissent, determined (1) the Fourth Department properly held that the warrantless arrest of the defendant outside the home violated Payton (445 US 573) and (2) the Fourth Department used the wrong criteria when it ruled the tenant’s consent to search the premises after defendant’s arrest was voluntary. The case was remitted to the Fourth Department for a ruling on the validity of the consent to search applying the correct criteria:

… Fifteen members of the Monroe County SWAT team and additional uniformed officers arrived at the apartment in an armored vehicle called a BearCat. The SWAT team members wore body armor and camouflage tactical clothing and carried assault rifles. The defendant did not live in the apartment but had been there for approximately 18 hours and stayed overnight the prior evening. An officer admitted that the police chose not to obtain an arrest warrant for the defendant because they wanted to interview him before his right to counsel attached.

A police investigator testified that upon seeing the defendant through the apartment window, he shouted at him to “come on out, house is surrounded . . . come out empty handed and come out with your hands up.” The defendant … exited the building, at which point he was taken into custody. Officers then entered the apartment and ordered the tenant and her cousin to “come out with [their] hands up” and lie face down with “guns to [them].” The tenant testified that she was scared; she and her cousin were handcuffed; and the police separated them and put the tenant into the back of a police patrol car, where she could not see her cousin and remained for approximately five to seven minutes. An officer obtained the tenant’s consent to search. * * *

When officers subject someone to a display of authority that induces them to exit the home under coercion, the sanctity of the home has been invaded to the same extent as if the officers had physically entered. Such a show of force violates Payton and renders an arrest unlawful … . * * *

… [T]he Appellate Division applied an incorrect legal standard in considering the validity of the tenant’s consent. People v Gonzalez (39 NY2d 122, 128-130 [1976]) sets forth the factors that should be considered in determining whether the consent was voluntary. Those include “whether the consenter is in custody or under arrest”; “the circumstances surrounding the custody or arrest,” including whether the person was “confronted by a large number of police agents”; whether the person was handcuffed; “the background of the consenter,” including their age and prior experience with police; “whether the consenter has been . . . evasive or uncooperative with the law enforcement authorities”; and “whether [the person] was advised of [their] right to refuse to consent” … .  The Appellate Division instead recited and applied the factors set forth in People v Borges (69 NY2d 1031, 1033 [1987]), which go to whether voluntary consent was attenuated from an illegal arrest, not whether the consent itself was voluntary. People v Shaw, 2026 NY Slip Op 00961, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: If a person is coerced by the police into leaving his home by a show of force, a warrantless arrest outside the home violates Payton and is illegal.

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when a consent to search obtained by the police can be considered voluntarily given.

 

, ,

EVEN WHERE EVIDENCE OF AN UNCHARGED CRIME IS “INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED” WITH THE NARRATIVE OF CHARGED CRIME, IT MAY BE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHS ITS PROBATIVE VALUE; HERE THE COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY ABOUT A PRIOR UNCHARGED SEX ACT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing the conviction in this sexual abuse prosecution, determined the evidence of a prior sex act with the complainant was much more prejudicial than probative. The evidence was therefore inadmissible:

Prior to the commencement of jury selection for the second trial, the People made a Molineux application to allow the complainant to testify about an alleged prior oral sexual encounter with defendant. The People argued, inter alia, that this evidence was “inextricably intertwined” with the complainant’s testimony as to the charges of sexual abuse, provided relevant background, and put the complainant’s testimony “into a believable context.” Supreme Court granted the People’s motion. The court concluded that the proposed testimony was “inextricably woven [in]to the narrative.” …

Supreme Court erred in granting the People’s Molineux application. Even if the People established some non-propensity basis for introducing this evidence, “the prejudicial nature of that evidence far outweighed any probative value” … . People v Nieves, 2026 NY Slip Op 00979, First Dept 2-19-26

Practice Point: Here in this sexual abuse prosecution, the complainant’s testimony about a prior, uncharged sex act was deemed much more prejudicial than probative. Therefore the testimony was inadmissible, despite the argument that it was “inextricably intertwined” with the narrative of the crime or provided relevant background.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL LEFT A PROFFER SESSION MIDWAY THROUGH THE PROCEEDINGS; DURING THE PROFFER SESSION DEFENDANT MADE AN INCRIMINATORY STATEMENT WHICH WAS USED TO IMPEACH HIS CREDIBILITY AT TRIAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel should have been granted. Defense counsel left a proffer session midway through the proceedings:

Supreme Court erred in finding that defendant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel absented himself from a proffer session midway through the session. Absent an express waiver from defendant, counsel had an obligation to be present during the session and to “be alert to, and to avert if he could, the possibility that defendant’s cooperation would hurt rather than help him” … . Under the circumstances, where counsel advanced no sound strategic reason behind his decision to leave the proffer session, his absence deprived defendant of meaningful representation at a critical stage in the proceeding … . Defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s absence, because a statement defendant made during the proffer session implicating himself in the burglaries for which he was ultimately tried and convicted for, was successfully used by the prosecution to impeach defendant’s credibility at the trial … . People v Anonymous, 2026 NY Slip Op 00980, First Dept 2-19-26

Practice Point: A proffer session is a critical stage of a criminal proceedings at which a defendant may incriminate himself. Here defense counsel’s leaving a proffer session midway constituted ineffective assistance warranting vacation of the conviction.

 

, ,

THE COURT OF APPEALS CANNOT REVIEW AN APPELLATE DIVISION’S WEIGHT-OF-THE-EVIDENCE RULING ABSENT THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S MANIFEST FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OR THE APPLICATION OF AN INCORRECT LEGAL STANDARD; NOT THE CASE HERE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the record did not support the appellant’s argument that the Appellate Division failed to consider the weight-of-the-evidence or did so using an incorrect legal principle. Therefore the Court of Appeals could not review the weight of the evidence:

On appeal, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the judgment (220 AD3d 1223 [4th Dept 2023]). The Court held that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, stating that, “[a]lthough a different verdict would not have been unreasonable,” the jury did not “fail[ ] to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” … . …

In Baque, we recently clarified the Appellate Division’s role in reviewing the weight of the evidence in a case involving purely circumstantial evidence. In a circumstantial evidence case, the jury must conclude that ” ‘the inference of guilt is the only one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence’ ” (Baque, 43 NY3d at 29 …). Observing that the Appellate Division’s function in conducting a weight review was to “independently assess all of the proof,” we explained that the Appellate Division, like the jury, must conclude that the evidence gives rise to such an inference … . We further reiterated in Baque that this Court has no power to review the Appellate Division’s decision regarding the weight of the evidence unless that Court ” ‘manifestly failed to consider the issue or did so using an incorrect legal principle’ ” … . * * *

Here, the Appellate Division expressly rejected defendant’s weight of the evidence challenge and did so by citing Bleakley and People v Danielson (9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007])—citations that we noted in Baque indicated that the Appellate Division applied the correct legal standard … .

… [W]e assume that the Appellate Division appropriately conducts its weight of the evidence review in a circumstantial evidence case, unless its decision manifestly demonstrates otherwise … . …

… [T]he Appellate Division cited …cases … indicating that the Appellate Division deferred to the jury’s credibility determinations and that it did not view this as an appropriate case in which to substitute its own credibility determinations for that of the jury … . …

In sum, Baque did not alter the longstanding principle that this Court “cannot review a weight of the evidence challenge unless the intermediate appellate court manifestly failed to consider the issue or did so using an incorrect legal principle” … . People v Anderson, 2026 NY Slip Op 00967, CtApp 2-29-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for the criteria for a Court-of-Appeals review of an Appellate Division’s weight-of-the-evidence ruling.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE COMMITTED A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR BY FAILING TO ACCURATELY AND FULLY INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the judge committed a mode of proceedings error by not fully explaining the contents of a jury note. The defendant testified that he was sitting in his parked car, with the engine running for heat, listening to music because he didn’t want to disturb his family in a nearby house. The police noticed the car running and found the defendant asleep with an open beer in his hand. Defendant was charged with DWI and other offenses. The jury sent out notes seeking clarification of the term “operate” asking whether “operation” requires an intent to drive the vehicle or whether merely having the engine running constitutes “”operation:”

The court … read the note into the record as follows:

“We the jury would like clarification on the law regarding the first three charges. There is a portion that states the operation is intent to move the vehicle. There was, however, another segment. That segment, stated that operation is if the engine is running.”

When it read the note to the parties it omitted a question from the jury … . The full note stated:

“We would like clarification on the law regarding the first 3 charges. There is a portion that states that operation is intent to move the vehicle. There was however another segment that segment that stated that operation is if the engine is running. Are both correct?” … .

When the court read [another] portion of the note aloud, the court again altered the jury language. The court stated:

“And, then they also said the law for consumption of alcohol beverages in certain motor vehicles does not seem to contain a section that includes solely the engine running, which is also correct, and I will just read them that charge. Is that acceptable?”

But the note read:

“Also, the law for [Consumption] of Alcoholic Beverages in certain motor vehicles does not seem to contain the section that includes solely the engine is running. Is this also correct?. * * *

The court’s failure to read the jury note verbatim, or otherwise create a record demonstrating that the parties had received a copy of the note, deprived Mr. Galindo [defendant] of meaningful notice of the precise contents of the substantive jury note. By omitting the question “Are both correct?”, the court obscured the nature of the jury’s inquiry with respect to the “operates” element shared by the three counts of intoxication and the unlicensed operation charge. The jury’s question strongly suggests it wanted to know whether the “operates” instruction contained two distinct conditions either one of which could satisfy the “operates” element. Put differently, the jury’s question crystallizes its inquiry: whether intent to move the vehicle was necessary or a running engine was sufficient to meet the definition of operation. Had Mr. Galindo been accurately apprised of the contents of the jury note, he would have had the opportunity to provide input into how the court resolved the jury’s inquiry. Instead, Mr. Galindo was deprived of meaningful notice, and rereading the original CJI instruction responsible for the jury’s initial confusion did not adequately address the jury’s question. People v Galindo, 2026 NY Slip Op 00965, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: Here the judge’s failure to read out the jury note verbatim constituted a  mode of proceedings error.

 

,

THE INVOLVEMENT OF A VAN IN A ROAD RAGE SHOOTING THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE TRAFFIC STOP AND AN INCIDENT WHERE A TRAFFIC AGENT WAS NEARLY STRUCK BY THE VAN 24 HOURS BEFORE THE STOP PROVIDED “REASONABLE SUSPICION” THAT THE DRIVER OF THE VAN AT THE TIME OF THE STOP WAS THE DRIVER DURING THE ROAD-RAGE AND TRAFFIC-AGENT INCIDENTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined “reasonable suspicion” supported a traffic stop of a van which had been involved in a road rage shooting three weeks before and had sped away from a traffic agent, nearly striking the agent, 24 hours before the stop. The driver who was involved in the road-rage and ticket-agent incidents had not been identified at the time of the stop:

Although police must have individualized suspicion that the driver or occupant of a vehicle has committed a crime to conduct a traffic stop, information about a car’s involvement in prior criminal activity may support a finding of reasonable suspicion … . Such prior activity contributes to a determination of reasonable suspicion when it occurs with sufficient temporal and geographic proximity to the stop to infer that the person who was driving the car during the prior crime is also driving at the time of the stop … . …

The officers who stopped the defendant on May 18th had information from a license plate search indicating that a white Dodge Caravan with a license plate number matching the defendant’s vehicle was involved in a road rage shooting in Washington Heights on April 28th. Although that information was nearly three weeks old, the officers also knew from their conversation with the traffic agent that less than 24 hours before the stop and in the same neighborhood, someone driving the same car had evaded a parking ticket and nearly hit the traffic agent as they drove away. Because the driver during the traffic infraction sped away, almost hitting the traffic agent, the officers could have reasonably inferred that the driver during the parking violation was also the driver during the shooting and fled to avoid repercussions from the shooting. Thus, in addition to inferring that there was a connection between the vehicle and the two incidents, they also reasonably inferred that the same person was driving that vehicle during both incidents. Moreover, the officers knew from the vehicle’s registration that it was privately owned, which significantly narrowed the universe of potential drivers … . People v Zubidi, 2026 NY Slip Op 00964, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: Here circumstantial evidence that the same driver of an identified van was involved in a road-rage shooting and in nearly striking a traffic agent was deemed to provide “reasonable suspicion” supporting a traffic stop of the van three weeks after the road-rage incident and 24 hours after the traffic-agent incident.

 

,

IF A DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA CASTS DOUBT UPON DEFENDANT’S GUILT OR THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE PLEA, THE JUDGE MUST “INQUIRE FURTHER;” THIS ISSUE CAN BE APPEALED IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION BY A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA OR VACATE THE CONVICTION; HOWEVER THIS EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY IF A DEFENDANT FIRST RAISES A QUESTION ABOUT HIS GUILT AT SENTENCING (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a two-judge concurring opinion, resolving a split of Appellate Division authority, determined that a defendant who pleads guilty but subsequently claims innocence at sentencing must, to preserve the issue for appeal, make a motion to withdraw his plea of vacate his judgment of conviction:

In People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662 [1988]), we articulated a narrow exception to the rule that defendants must move before the trial court—either to withdraw their plea or vacate their judgment of conviction—to preserve their challenge to the factual sufficiency of their plea allocution. The Lopez exception applies “where the defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” … . If that occurs, and the trial court accepts the plea without inquiring further, “the defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the allocution on direct appeal, notwithstanding that a formal postallocution motion was not made” … .

Defendant now asks us to resolve a question that has divided the Appellate Division: does the Lopez exception apply where, as here, defendant has merely claimed at sentencing that he is not guilty of the crime to which he had previously pleaded guilty? We now clarify that, because the Lopez exception arises from a court’s duty to inquire further where a defendant’s statements prior to entry of the plea cast serious doubt on its validity, the exception does not apply to defendant’s postplea statements made at sentencing. As a result, defendant’s argument that his plea was not knowing and voluntary is unpreserved for our review because defendant did not first move to withdraw his plea or vacate his judgment of conviction. * * *

… [W]e hold that statements made at sentencing challenging the factual basis of a plea do not trigger the [judge’s] duty to inquire. … [T]he Lopez exception to the preservation doctrine does not apply. The Lopez exception is based on the trial court’s constitutional duty to ensure, prior to accepting a plea, that a defendant’s plea is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent … . Inasmuch as the Lopez exception … arises from a trial court’s failure to perform its mandatory “duty to inquire further” prior to accepting a questionable plea… , it does not apply here. People v Rios, 2026 NY Slip Op 00963, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: There is no exception to the preservation requirement when a defendant first raises doubts about his guilt or the voluntariness of his plea at sentencing, as opposed to at the time of the plea. The issue must be preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the conviction.

 

, ,

THE MISTRIAL, GRANTED AFTER THE JURY WAS SWORN, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY BAR TO FURTHER PROSECUTION BECAUSE THE JUDGE’S INQUIRY REVEALED THAT A JUROR’S COMMENTS, AND THE OTHER JURORS’ REACTIONS TO THOSE COMMENTS, IRREPARABLY TAINTED THE JURY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, dismissing the defendant’s (respondent’s) prohibition petition, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined that the mistrial granted after the jury had been sworn did trigger the double-jeopardy bar to further prosecution because the trial judge (the respondent) properly found “there was manifest necessity for the mistrial.” Comments made by juror No. 5, and other jurors reactions to the comments, irreparably tainted the jury:

… CPL 280.10 authorizes the court to declare a mistrial “[u]pon motion of the people, when there occurs during the trial, either inside or outside the courtroom, gross misconduct by . . . a juror, resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the people’s case” … . * * *

… [J]uror No. 5’s comments and flagrant disregard for respondent’s admonitions resulted in “substantial and irreparable prejudice” to the People’s case (CPL 280.10 [2]). Although each juror averred that they could nevertheless remain fair and impartial, the record supports respondent’s contrary conclusion in light of the hesitation of many jurors to disclose juror No. 5’s conduct, the denial of others as to having heard any of the subject comments at all and another juror who gave contradictory answers about what he had heard, notwithstanding respondent’s instructions to report improper attempts to influence the jury. Matter of Guiden v Jose-Decker, 2026 NY Slip Op 00942, Third Dept 2-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the procedure to be followed by the judge before granting a mistrial after the jury has been sworn. To avoid the double-jeopardy bar to further prosecution, the record must demonstrate “a manifest necessity for a mistrial.”

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES, GUIDANCE OF THE PROSECUTION, AND OBVIOUS BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the evidence supported the convictions but the judge’s questioning of witnesses and obvious bias in favor of the prosecution deprived defendant of a fair trial. The issue was not preserved for appeal but the Second Department considered it in the interest of justice:

“‘[A] trial judge is permitted to question witnesses to clarify testimony and to facilitate the progress of trial, and, if necessary, to develop factual information,’ so long as the judge does not take on the function or appearance of an advocate” … . Here, the Supreme Court engaged extensively in its own areas of inquiry, asked numerous leading questions of the People’s witnesses, including the complainant and a police officer, as to their observations of the defendant, elicited identification testimony, and guided the prosecution at length in its questioning.

Viewing the record as a whole, the Supreme Court improperly took on the function and appearance of an advocate. The court’s conduct left the impression that its opinion favored the credibility of the People’s witnesses and the merits of the People’s case … , thus depriving the defendant of a fair trial … . People v Morales, 2026 NY Slip Op 00913, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: A judge’s involvement in a prosecution which rises to the level of an advocate for the prosecution’s case deprives a defendant of a fair trial.

 

, ,

THE SECOND DEPARTMENT REVERSED SUPREME COURT AND FOUND THERE WAS “GOOD CAUSE” FOR THE 27-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE HOMICIDE AND DEFENDANT’S ARREST FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a detailed full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, determined defendant’s due process rights were not violated by a 27-year delay between the homicide and defendant’s arrest for murder. The opinion is necessarily fact-specific. The facts were analyzed using the “Taranovich factors” for determining whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial or due process right to prompt prosecution has been violated. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here:

“The Court of Appeals has articulated the following factors to consider when determining whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial or due process right to prompt prosecution has been violated: (1) the extent of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the nature of the underlying charge, (4) whether there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration, and (5) whether there is any indication that the defense has been prejudiced by the delay” (hereinafter the Taranovich factors) (… see People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445). “The Taranovich framework is a holistic one” … . Thus, “[n]o one factor or combination of the factors is necessarily decisive or determinative of the prompt prosecution claim, but rather the particular case must be considered in light of all the factors as they apply to it” … . “Where, as here, there has been a protracted preindictment delay over a period of years, the burden is on the prosecution to establish good cause” … . People v Grant, 2026 NY Slip Op 00910, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how the “Taranovich factors” are applied to the facts to determine whether there is “good cause” for an extensive delay in prosecution, here 27 years.

 

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