You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

HERE THE DEFENDANT, IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE EXTENT OF HIS COOPERATION AND WHETHER NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATED THE PROSECUTOR’S WITHDRAWAL OF THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT; THE PEOPLE’S RESPONSE DID NOT ADDRESS THESE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES; THEREFORE COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Court Court, determined defendant had raised several issues in the motion to vacate the conviction which were not addressed by the People’s response. Some of the issues were corroborated in an affidavit from defendant’s prior attorney. Therefore a hearing was necessary:

… [W]e agree with defendant that he is entitled to a hearing on whether counsel was ineffective in connection with defendant’s alleged failure to fully cooperate under the terms of the 2016 cooperation agreement. A hearing is required on a CPL article 440 motion “if the submissions show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established are material and would entitle the defendant to relief” … . In that regard, defendant averred that he consistently gave a truthful account of the burglary and had fully cooperated in the prosecution of [a codefendant] as required by the 2016 cooperation agreement, and his motion papers included a September 2016 supporting deposition from his sister and an affidavit from [his former attorney] to support those claims. Defendant also alleged specific deficiencies in counsel’s performance, namely, that counsel failed to investigate whether the Special Prosecutor’s withdrawal of the 2016 cooperation agreement was impermissibly “premised on bad faith, invidiousness, . . . dishonesty” or unconstitutional considerations and, moreover, failed to discuss the possibility of demanding a hearing on that issue with defendant … . People v Buckley, 2022 NY Slip Op 04197, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: If a motion to vacate the conviction raises substantive issues which are corroborated is some way (here with an affidavit by defendant’s prior attorney), and these substantive issues are not adequately dealt with in the People’s responding papers, a hearing must be held.

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED HIS INCARCERATED BROTHER WAS BEING HARASSED BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; HE CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THREATENED TO “BLOW AN OFFICER’S HEAD OFF” “IF THEY TOUCH MY BROTHER;” DEFENDANT’S “MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT” CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s “making a terroristic threat” conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence, Defendant’s brother was incarcerated. Defendant was concerned that his brother was being harassed by corrections officers. Defendant allegedly called the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and said he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother:”

…”[A] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when[,] with intent to . . . affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, . . . he or she threatens to commit . . . a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense” (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Penal Law article 490 was enacted following the September 11, 2001 attacks and was “specifically designed to combat the evils of terrorism” … . Accordingly, “[t]he concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act” …  ….

… [T]he evidence fails to establish that defendant “cause[d] a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission” of an offense under the factual circumstance presented here (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Neither the first investigator nor the supervisor took any actions to warn the correctional facility or any other agency or individuals of the threat. While a notice was eventually issued, this was not done until well after the initial threat was made. None of the witnesses provided any testimony that they or anyone else had a reasonable expectation or fear that the threat would be imminently carried out, nor did their actions indicate any such belief. People v Santiago, 2022 NY Slip Op 04196, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s statement he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother” did not cause the investigators who heard the statement to expect or fear the imminent commission of the offense, which is an element of “making a terroristic threat.” Defendant’s conviction was therefore against the weight of the evidence. The decision cautions against interpreting the “terroristic threat” statute loosely.

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

THE UNEXPLAINED FAILURE TO SEE A VEHICLE BEFORE COLLIDING WITH IT, WITHOUT MORE, DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s criminally negligent homicide conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s failure to see the victim’s vehicle on the side of the highway until it was too late did not rise to the level of criminal negligence (legally insufficient evidence). The victim was in a pickup truck with a sign on the back warning drivers that roadwork was being done ahead:

“A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person” … . “A defendant acts with criminal negligence in this context when the defendant ‘fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk’ that death will result” … . “That ‘risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation'” … . “[C]riminal liability cannot be predicated on every act of carelessness resulting in death[;] . . . the carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence, and that . . . carelessness must be such that its seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong” … . As such, a defendant must “engage[] in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death” … . Importantly, “nonperception of a risk, even if death results, is not enough” … . …

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he unexplained failure of a driver to see the vehicle with which he [or she] subsequently collided does not, without more, support a conviction for the felony of criminally negligent homicide” … . People v Faucett, 2022 NY Slip Op 04195, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: This case includes a detailed description of the criteria for criminal negligence. In the context of a traffic accident, the defendant’s unexplained failure to see the other vehicle until it was too late, without more, does not constitute criminal negligence.

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY OR GIVEN THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THIS ISSUE FALLS WITHIN AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the defendant made statements during the plea allocution which negated elements of criminal possession of a weapon. At that point, the sentencing judge should have made an inquiry. This issue falls within an exception to the preservation requirement:

Penal Law § 265.03 (3) requires the possession of a “loaded firearm,” meaning “an operable gun with either live ammunition in the gun or held on [the defendant’s] person” with the gun … . … [D]efendant negated that element at sentencing when he stated that the handgun in question was in his bedstand drawer, not on his person, and that it “wasn’t loaded.” At that point, it was incumbent upon County Court to either “conduct a further inquiry or give . . . defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … . People v Reese, 2022 NY Slip Op 04194, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: When a defendant makes statements during the plea allocution which negate an element of the charged offense, the judge must make an inquiry or give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea. The error need not be preserved for appeal.

 

/0 Comments/by
,

HERE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) AFTER HE HAD BEEN INDICTED; THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS INVALID AND THE SCI WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR IS JURISDICTIONAL AND NEED NOT BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s judgment by guilty plea and dismissed the superior court information (SCI). A defendant cannot be prosecuted by an SCI after indictment (defendant here had already been indicted. The error is jurisdictional and need not be preserved by objection. The issue is not forfeited by a guilty plea:

As the Court of Appeals has observed, “[g]iven the objective and the plain language of CPL 195.10 (2) (b), the conclusion is inescapable that waiver cannot be accomplished after indictment . . ., even where it is the defendant who orchestrates the scenario” … .

Here, at the point in time when defendant agreed to be prosecuted by way of an SCI, defendant already had been indicted and the matter was scheduled for trial. Although the indictment subsequently was dismissed, there is no indication in the record that the dismissal was occasioned by a defect in the indictment itself (see CPL 210.20) or that Supreme Court authorized resubmission of the charge to the grand jury (see CPL 210.45 [9]), and it does not appear that a new felony complaint was filed. “Therefore, defendant was not placed on a formal preindictment procedural track” … . Under these circumstances, the waiver of indictment is invalid and the resulting SCI must be dismissed … . People v Michalski, 2022 NY Slip Op 04190, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant was already indicted when he waived indictment and pled guilty to a superior court information (SCI). That was a jurisdictional error which need not be preserved by objection.

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

COUNTY COURT DISMISSED THE PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND COUNT; THE PEOPLE APPEALED; COUNTY COURT THEN STAYED ITS DISMISSAL, HELD A TRIAL, AND DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED; AFTER THE CONVICTION THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AS MOOT; THE DEFENDANT APPEALED; THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO STAY THE DISMISSAL AND GO TO TRIAL ON THAT COUNT; THE CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s promoting-prison-contraband conviction, determined the trial judge, who had initially dismissed the promoting-prison-contraband count, subsequently stayed the dismissal and promoting-prison-contraband count went to trial with other charges. Apparently the judge stayed the dismissal of the charge because the People had appealed the dismissal. After the trial, the People’s appeal was dismissed as moot. Then the defendant appealed and argued the judge did not have the statutory authority to stay the dismissal and go to trial on the dismissed count:

We agree with defendant that County Court improperly stayed its dismissal order. The People had appealed to this Court pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1). In pertinent part, that provision authorizes the People to appeal, as of right, from an order that dismissed an accusatory instrument or a count thereof pursuant to CPL 210.20. Except as provided for in CPL 460.40, the taking of an appeal from a judgment, sentence or order does not automatically stay the execution thereof. With respect to appeals by the People to an intermediate appellate court, an automatic stay results only in the case of an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1-a) “from an order reducing a count or counts of an indictment or dismissing an indictment and directing the filing of a prosecutor’s information” or an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1) “from an order dismissing a count or counts of an indictment charging murder in the first degree” (CPL 460.40 [2]). Plainly, none of those circumstances are present. * * *

… [T]here was no statutory authorization for a stay of County Court’s dismissal order. Without a stay, the bench trial should not have included the charge of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, and, thus, there should have been no occasion for defendant to be convicted of the lesser included offense of promoting prison contraband in the second degree. Accordingly, we vacate that conviction. People v Felli, 2022 NY Slip Op 04192, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: With certain exceptions in CPL 460.40, the dismissal of a count cannot be stayed when the People appeal the dismissal. Here the judge dismissed a count, the People appealed, the judge then stayed the dismissal, held a trial, defendant was convicted of the count, and the People’s appeal was dismissed as moot. Because the judge had no authority pursuant to CPL 460.40 to stay the dismissal and go to trial on the dismissed count, the conviction was vacated.

 

/0 Comments/by
,

BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY OBJECTION, THE MAJORITY DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER COUNTY COURT MADE A PROPER INQUIRY OF A JUROR WHO, DURING DELIBERATIONS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, REVEALED SHE WAS A RAPE VICTIM; DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH RAPE; THE DISSENTING JUDGE WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department refused to consider whether County Court properly handled an “outburst by a juror during deliberations” because the issue was not preserved by objection. The dissenting justice would have considered the issue in the interest of justice and ordered a new trial:

From the dissent:

The foreperson said it best — “how did you get this far if that’s the case? . . . you shouldn’t be here.” The foreperson said this to one of the jurors, who was in seat No. 6, after this juror revealed during deliberations that she was a victim of rape — one of the crimes for which defendant was being tried. Juror No. 6 had not disclosed this fact during voir dire or on the juror questionnaire. In any event, County Court proceeded to question each juror, including juror No. 6, to determine if any of them was grossly unqualified. Such inquiry, however, was not “probing and tactful” … and, consequently, the court failed to ensure that the finding of guilt was the product of a fair and impartial jury. * * *

In my view, County Court’s inquiry did not meet the probing and tactful standard. Based on the allegations of rape made against defendant, juror No. 6’s revelation of being a rape victim and the doubt expressed by the foreperson about juror No. 6’s impartiality, it was incumbent upon the court, at the very least, to ask juror No. 6 about being a rape victim. Indeed, the court intended on asking juror No. 6 about being a sexual assault victim but, for some reason that is not apparent in the record, it never did. Merely asking whether juror No. 6 was a crime victim did not address the emotionally charged situation that the foreperson brought to the court’s attention. The court’s inquiry was therefore flawed from the outset. People v Rivera, 2022 NY Slip Op 04050, Third Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Because the issue was not preserved for appeal by objection, the majority refused to consider whether Count Court made a proper inquiry when a juror revealed during deliberations, for the first time, she was a rape victim, Defendant was charged with rape. The dissenting justice would have considered the issue in the interest of justice and ordered a new trial.

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE MAJORITY REFUSED TO CONSIDER WHETHER COUNTY COURT PROPERLY DISCHARGED A JUROR WHO FAILED TO APPEAR BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY OBJECTION; TWO DISSENTERS WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department refused to consider whether the court properly discharged a juror because the issue was not preserved by objection. The two dissenting justices would have ordered a new trial in the interest of justice:

From the dissent:

If a juror is unable to continue serving due to an illness, “the court shall make a reasonably thorough inquiry concerning such illness . . . and shall attempt to ascertain when such juror will be appearing in court” (CPL 270.35 [2] [a]). * * *

… [O]n the day at issue and approximately 30 minutes after the scheduled start of the trial, County Court noted that juror No. 1 was not present. The court remarked, “She did leave sick yesterday,” and, after such remark, stated that it was necessary to replace juror No. 1 with an alternate juror. …

… [T]here was no reasonably thorough inquiry — let alone, any inquiry — as to juror No. 1’s absence. Although juror No. 1 was apparently ill on the day when she was selected for service, the court did not bother to learn if she continued to be ill. It seems that the court merely speculated that, because juror No. 1 was ill the day before, she continued to be ill and that was the reason why she did not show up at the scheduled time for the start of the trial. Such speculation, however, does not meet the standard of conducting a reasonably thorough inquiry. … [E]ven if it could be said that the court did make a reasonably thorough inquiry, the court still failed to ascertain when juror No. 1 would return to court. The record discloses that, prior to discharging juror No. 1, the court neither heard from nor reached out to her to see if she would not be making it for the trial or if she was en route to the courthouse … . People v Colter, 2022 NY Slip Op 04055, Third Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Here the issue whether County Court properly discharged a juror was not considered by the majority because the issue was not preserved by objection. The two dissenters argued the court did not conduct a proper inquiry to determine why the juror had not appeared and whether the juror would appear. The dissenters would have considered the issue in the interest of justice and ordered a new trial.

 

/0 Comments/by
,

AFTER TRIGGERING A SECURITY ALARM AT A SPORTING GOODS STORE, DEFENDANT WAS DETAINED IN THE STORE FOR HALF AN HOUR IN THE PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS WHOSE QUESTIONS WERE NOT CONFINED TO THE PETIT LARCENY INVESTIGATION RE: AMMUNITION, BUT RATHER RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF FIREARMS; DEFENDANT’S UNWARNED STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the questioning by the police when defendant was still in a sporting goods store where he allegedly attempted to steal ammunition constituted custodial interrogation in the absence of the Miranda warnings. The statements made by the defendant at the sporting goods store should have been suppressed:

The entire interaction at the sporting goods store was captured by the various body cameras worn by the police involved. Viewing same, it is evident that, throughout most of the interaction, four police officers were present at the sporting goods store, with at least one officer positioned between defendant and the exit. More importantly, shortly after the police arrived, defendant had been told to empty his pockets and place all of his personal property on the counter. Defendant did so. While being detained by the police, defendant asked the police multiple times if he could retrieve his possessions. The police denied each of these requests. … Additionally, the questions posed by the police to defendant exceeded that necessary for investigation. Many of their inquiries were not limited to the petit larceny, the allegation in question, but instead focused on firearms that defendant may have possessed, their location, caliber and defendant’s intent as to his usage of same. With the benefit of viewing the interaction between the police and defendant, and considering all the circumstances involved, we cannot say that a reasonable person would have felt free to leave … . People v Abdullah, 2022 NY Slip Op 04045, Third Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Defendant triggered a security alarm in a sporting goods store when he attempted to steal ammunition. He was detained by police in the store for half an hour and was asked questions about his possession of firearms. Because the questions exceeded the scope of the petit larceny investigation and were not preceded by the Miranda warnings, defendant’s statements should have been suppressed. His conviction was reversed.

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

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.

 

/0 Comments/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy