You are here: / Criminal Law
,

HERE AN ALLEGED PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY THE ROBBERY VICTIM, OFFERED AT TRIAL SOLELY FOR IMPEACHMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VICTIM WAS THE SOLE WITNESS TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE FACTS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s conviction. over a three-judge concurring opinion, determined that an alleged prior inconsistent statement made by the robbery victim, the only fact witness, offered at trial solely for impeachment, did not render the evidence legally insufficient. Neither the memorandum decision nor the concurring opinion discusses the underlying facts:

The victim, who was the sole person to testify about the facts concerning defendant’s conviction of robbery in the third degree, gave a statement to police, through an interpreter, several hours after the alleged robbery that was inconsistent on a material element of the offense with his trial testimony. That statement was introduced through the officer’s testimony at trial, solely for the purpose of impeachment. When an alleged contradictory prior statement is admitted solely for the purpose of impeachment, the rule of People v Ledwon (153 NY 10 [1897]) and People v Jackson (65 NY2d 265 [1985]) is not implicated. The evidence was legally sufficient to support the inference that defendant intended to steal property forcibly … . People v Howard, 2025 NY Slip Op 00804, CtApp 2-13-25

Practice Point: Here a prior inconsistent statement by the robbery victim, the only fact witness at trial, did not render the evidence legally insufficient.

 

,

IF THE TRIAL EVIDENCE VARIES FROM THE THEORY OF THE INDICTMENT, THE RELATED CONVICTIONS WILL BE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s convictions on some counts, determined the trial evidence varied from the theory of the indictment. The facts were not explained:

This Court agrees with the parties that defendant’s conviction under count 2 of the indictment charging grand larceny in the fourth degree, as well as criminal acts 1 and 6 alleged in count 1 of the indictment charging enterprise corruption, must be reversed because the trial evidence, which included evidence suggesting that defendant threatened physical damage to construction sites through vandalism, varied from the theory of the indictment (see People v Grega, 72 NY2d 489, 496-498 [1988]). People v Correll, 2025 NY Slip Op 00796, First Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: If the trial evidence does not comport with the theory of the indictment, the related counts will be vacated.​

 

,

COUNTY COURT PROPERLY GRANTED THE PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF DEFENDANT’S CASE TO FAMILY COURT UNDER THE “RAISE THE AGE ACT;” THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a comprehensive dissent, determined County Court properly granted the People’s motion to prevent removal of defendant’s case to Family Court pursuant to the Raise the Age Law:

In 2017, the New York State Legislature enacted the Raise the Age Law, which defines a person who was charged with a felony committed on or after October 1, 2018 when the person was 16 years old, or committed on or after October 1, 2019 when the person was 17 years old, as an ” ‘[a]dolescent offender’ ” … . The Raise the Age Law created in each county a youth part of the superior court to make appropriate determinations with respect to the cases of, inter alia, adolescent offenders … . Where, as here, an adolescent offender is charged with a violent felony as defined in Penal Law § 70.02, within six calendar days of the adolescent offender’s arraignment, the youth part of superior court is required to review the accusatory instrument and determine whether the prosecutor has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the adolescent offender caused “significant physical injury” to someone other than a participant in the crime, displayed a “firearm, shotgun, rifle or deadly weapon as defined in the penal law” in furtherance of the crime, or unlawfully engaged in sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct or sexual contact as defined in section 130.00 of the Penal Law … . If none of those factors exist, the matter must be transferred to Family Court unless the prosecutor moves to prevent the transfer of the action to Family Court and establishes that extraordinary circumstances exist … . … [I]n making an extraordinary circumstances determination, courts should “look at all the circumstances of the case, as well as . . . all of the circumstances of the young person,” … . …

… [T]he court did not abuse its discretion in granting the prosecutor’s motion to prevent removal inasmuch as the prosecutor established that there are extraordinary circumstances. … [D]efendant’s prior adjudications as a juvenile delinquent or any evidence obtained as a result of those proceedings cannot be used in determining whether to grant the People’s motion (Family Ct Act § 381.2 [2] …).. Nevertheless, although it is impermissible to raise any issue related to the adjudication or evidence obtained therefrom, it is still permissible to raise ” ‘the illegal or immoral acts underlying such adjudications’ ” … .

Here … defendant was charged with participating in a violent crime, i.e., a home invasion robbery involving weapons and resulting in injuries to the victim. Moreover, despite the various services and programs provided to defendant over the last five years while defendant had been involved in the criminal justice system, defendant has made no appreciable positive response and continues to engage in escalating criminal behavior. People v Guerrero, 2025 NY Slip Op 00766, Fourth Dept 2-7-25

Practice Point: Under the “Raise the Age Act” the People can move to prevent the transfer of felony cases to Family Court where the defendant was 16 or 17 at the time of the alleged offense.

 

, , ,

DESIGNATING DEFENDANT A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER BASED SOLELY UPON THE FACT HE WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN PENNSYLVANIA VIOLATED DUE PROCESS; HOWEVER THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA FELONIES WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE IN NEW YORK, A QUESTION NOT RAISED BEFORE COUNTY COURT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s SORA designation as a sexually violent offender based upon Pennsylvania convictions as a violation of due process, but remitted the matter to Count Court for consideration of the issue under another provision of the Correction Law:

… [W]e conclude, based on the reasoning set forth by the plurality in People v Malloy (228 AD3d 1284, 1287-1291 [4th Dept 2024]), that there is no rational basis for designating defendant a sexually violent offender solely on the ground of his conviction of the Pennsylvania felony sex offenses requiring him to register as a sex offender in that jurisdiction … . Defendant has therefore met his burden of showing that the imposition of the sexually violent offender designation under the second disjunctive clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b), as applied to him, violates his constitutional right to substantive due process. Consequently, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and vacate that designation.

However, we note that the issue whether the essential elements of any of the Pennsylvania felonies were the statutory equivalent of a sexually violent offense in New York under the essential elements test set out in the first disjunctive clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b) was never raised before County Court. We decline to consider that alternative basis for affirmance, sua sponte, for the first time on appeal … . We therefore remit to County Court to consider whether any of the Pennsylvania felonies includes all of the essential elements of a sexually violent offense set forth in Correction Law § 168-a (3) (a) … . People v Boldorff, 2025 NY Slip Op 00765, Fourth Dept 2-7-25

Practice Point: A sexually-violent-offender designation based solely upon the fact defendant was required to register as a sex offender in Pennsylvania was deemed unconstitutional here. But the matter was remitted for a determination whether any of the Pennsylvania felonies would have constituted a sexually violent offense in New York.​

 

,

THE BULLET CASINGS IN EVIDENCE COULD HAVE COME FROM A PISTOL OR A RIFLE; DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A PISTOL AND THE JURY WAS SO INSTRUCTED; BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE JURY TO CONCLUDE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A PISTOL, AS OPPOSED TO A RIFLE, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction as against the weight of the evidence, determined the People did not prove defendant possessed a “pistol” as opposed to a “rifle” at the time of the shooting. There was video evidence showing a muzzle flash from the area in the car where defendant was sitting, but the weapon could not be seen. Because the indictment and the jury instructions charged defendant with possession of a “pistol,” the conviction could not stand:

… [T]he indictment and the jury charge specifically narrowed the theory of the case to require the People to establish that defendant possessed a loaded pistol at the time in question. Here, the evidence permitted, at best, mere speculation that the firearm defendant allegedly possessed was a pistol, and not a rifle. Video footage of the shooting shows multiple muzzle flashes indicative of gunfire from the vehicle—it does not directly depict the firearm that is firing the shots. Moreover, the angle of the video does not permit an observer to make any reasonable inferences about what type of firearm is being fired at the relevant time. Nothing in the video establishes that the firearm being fired was a pistol rather than another type of firearm. People v Brumfield, 2025 NY Slip Op 00764, Fourth Dept 2-7-25

Practice Point: The People are held to the theory presented in the indictment and charged to the jury. Since the indictment charged defendant with illegal possession of a pistol and the jury was so charged, the People’s failure to prove the type of firearm defendant possessed required reversal of the conviction.

 

, ,

THE WARRANT REQUIRED THE SEIZED CELL PHONE BE “RETURNED TO THE COURT;” INSTEAD THE CELL PHONE WAS TURNED OVER TO A CYBERSECURITY CENTER WHICH CONDUCTED A FORENSIC EXAMINATION AND MEMORY EXTRACTION; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE INFORMATION GLEANED FROM THE CELL PHONE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate her manslaughter conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel should have been granted. The search of defendant’s cell phone far exceeded the scope of the warrant. The warrant required that the seized cell phone be “returned to the court.” Instead the phone was turned over to a cybersecurity and forensics center where a forensic examination and memory extraction was conducted. A considerable amount of trial evidence was gleaned from the cell phone. Defense counsel did not move to suppress the cell-phone evidence:

We agree with defendant that she was denied effective assistance of counsel inasmuch as defense counsel failed to properly move to suppress the evidence obtained from her cell phone. “[I]ndiscriminate searches pursuant to general warrants ‘were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment’ ” … . A person’s cell phone now contains at least as much personal and private information as their home and, thus, indiscriminate searches of cell phones cannot be permitted … . As defendant correctly contends, the forensic examination and memory extraction of her cell phone’s contents exceeded the scope of the warrant, which only authorized OCSO to seize the cell phone and return it to the court … . Furthermore, the warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement inasmuch as it, inter alia, did not “specify the items to be seized by their relation to designated crimes” … . Thus, we conclude that defendant “established that a motion to suppress would likely be successful, and that defense counsel had no strategic or other legitimate explanation for not moving to suppress the evidence” … . People v Conley, 2025 NY Slip Op 00597, Fourth Dept 1-31-25

Practice Point: The Fourth Department noted that the search of a cell phone can reveal as much information as the search of a home. To be valid, a cell -phone search must be confined to the terms of the warrant, and the warrant must specify the items to be seized by their relation to the crimes.

 

, ,

HEARSAY ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PROBATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the declaration of delinquency, determined the hearsay testimony of a police investigation was not sufficient to prove defendant violated the terms and conditions of a probationary sentence:

… [T]he evidence at the hearing that he committed a criminal offense while on probation consisted entirely of hearsay testimony from a police investigator. “While hearsay is admissible at a probation revocation hearing, hearsay alone does not satisfy the requirement that a finding of a probation violation must be based upon a preponderance of the evidence” … . Based on this record, we conclude that County Court’s determination “was based on hearsay alone and therefore cannot stand” … . People v Hawkey, 2025 NY Slip Op 00569, Fourth Dept 1-31-25

Practice Point: Hearsay is admissible at a probation revocation hearing, but hearsay alone will not support revocation.

 

, ,

“MOLINEUX” EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY THREATENED HIS WIFE WITH A HANDGUN FOR PERCEIVED INFIDELITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT POSSESSED A HANDGUN WITH THE INTENT TO USE IT AGAINST HIS STEPCHILDREN; NEW TRIAL ORDERED; THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO FILE A REDUCED ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT AFTER THE JUDGE REDUCED THE CHARGE IN COUNT 3 REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THAT COUNT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that the judge’s Molineux ruling was an error requiring reversal and the People’s failure to file an amended accusatory instrument after the judge reduced the charge required dismissal of the related count:

… [T]he charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is based on allegations that defendant possessed a handgun with the intent to use it unlawfully against his stepchildren, and the People sought to admit the evidence of defendant’s “systematic abuse” of his wife to show defendant’s motive, intent, absence of mistake, and identity in this case. The evidence, however, is not directly relevant to motive. The evidence of defendant’s past conduct demonstrated a pattern of threatening his wife with the gun for perceived infidelity, but it did not complete a narrative that would explain or support defendant’s sudden aggression against his stepchildren … . The evidence also is entirely unnecessary to establish defendant’s intent. Mere possession of a firearm is “presumptive evidence of intent to use [it] unlawfully against another” (Penal Law § 265.15 [4]). Further, there is no question whether defendant’s alleged actions were the result of accident or mistake … , and defendant’s identity is not at issue.

Moreover, even if the evidence is relevant to an exception under Molineux, the court abused its discretion in determining that its probative value outweighed its potential for prejudice … . Evidence that defendant previously threatened his wife with a gun showed that defendant ” ‘had allegedly engaged in similar behavior on a prior occasion . . . —classic propensity evidence’ ” … . It is ” ‘of slight value when compared to the possible prejudice to [defendant]’ and therefore should not have been admitted” … .

… [B]efore jury selection and at the People’s request, the court reduced the charge in count 3 of the indictment from criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree … to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree … . The People thereafter failed to file a reduced or amended accusatory instrument. Inasmuch as ” ‘[a] valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution’ ” … , count 3 of the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Alexander, 2025 NY Slip Op 00539, Fourth Dept 1-31-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear demonstration of when evidence of a prior bad act which is similar to the charged offense should be excluded because the prejudice outweighs the probative value.

Practice Point: If the judge grants the People’s request to reduce a charge prior to jury selection, the People must file a reduced accusatory instrument. Failure to do so requires dismissal of the related count in the indictment.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IN THIS ARSON/MURDER CASE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s arson, murder and reckless endangerment convictions, determined the trial judge should have given the circumstantial evidence instruction to the jury:

“It is well settled that a trial court must grant a defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge when the proof of the defendant’s guilt rests solely on circumstantial evidence . . . By contrast, where there is both direct and circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt, such a charge need not be given” … . …[T]his was not a case with ” ‘both direct and circumstantial evidence of . . . defendant’s guilt,’ ” which would negate the need for a circumstantial evidence charge … . Indeed, none of the evidence presented at trial “prove[d] directly a disputed fact without requiring an inference to be made” … .

Further, this is not “the exceptional case where the failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless error” … . Although ” ‘overwhelming proof of guilt’ cannot be defined with mathematical precision” … , it necessarily requires more evidence of guilt than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If that were not so, all errors would be harmless in cases where the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence … .

Here, the strongest evidence linking defendant to the crime is the video surveillance recording. As noted, that video, which is grainy and shot from a distance, depicts a flickering or glow as defendant exits the premises, which promptly grows into a blaze as defendant walks away. There is no way to discern from the video the exact moment that the fire is set or precisely how the fire began. “In order for the jury to find defendant guilty it had to make a number of logical leaps connecting defendant to the crimes charged. Had the trial court given the circumstantial evidence charge, alerting the jury of the need to exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence,” we conclude that the verdict may have been different … . People v Exford, 2025 NY Slip Op 00536, Fourth Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: In this arson and murder case, the failure to give the circumstantial-evidence jury instruction warranted a new trial. The jury was required to make several “logical leaps,” based upon grainy video evidence showing defendant walking away from a building which caught fire, to convict.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE DETERMINING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK-LEVEL; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The First Department, remitting the matter, determined the judge did not make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law when designating the defendant’s risk level under SORA:

In designating a sex offender’s risk level under SORA, “[t]he court shall render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). Here, the court’s statement at the conclusion of the hearing “did not adequately set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which it based its decision” to assess the points at issue on appeal and deny defendant’s motion for a downward departure … . Instead, the court simply stated: “The People have met their burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence, that 135 points were properly assessed, which corresponds to a Level 3 sex offender designation. The motion for downward departure is denied.” The court’s written order repeated those statements. Therefore, we remand the matter to Supreme Court “to specify the required findings and conclusions, based on the evidence already introduced” … . People v Tolliver, 2025 NY Slip Op 00489, First Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: A judge’s designation of a defendant’s SORA risk level must be supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law.

 

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