Criminal Law Archives - New York Appellate Digest

PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO HOLD BACK INFORMATION (OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO AUTOMATIC DISCLOSURE) UNTIL AFTER JURY SELECTION VACATED; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO OPPOSE THE REQUEST FOR THE ORDER; THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW DISCOVERY PROVISIONS ADDRESSED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a expedited appellate review of the issuance of a protective order by Supreme Court, vacated the protective order and sent the matter back to allow the defense to make an argument in opposition. The defendant is accused of stabbing his wife multiple times. The People, pursuant to CPL 245.70, ex parte, applied for and were granted an order delaying, until after jury selection, the turning over of information otherwise subject to automatic disclosure under CPL 245.70. The decision makes an effort to explain how these new disclosure provisions should be handled by the trial courts:

Unlike the prior discovery statute, which allowed the People to wait until the time of trial to turn over witness statements (see CPL former 240.45), the new statutory scheme provides that disclosure is to be made within days after arraignment (see CPL 245.10[1][a]). The new statute provides that there shall be a “presumption in favor of disclosure” when interpreting certain listed provisions of CPL article 245 (CPL 245.20[7]), although the provision relating to protective orders (CPL 245.70) is not among those that are listed (see CPL 245.20[7]).

CPL 245.70 provides that upon a showing of good cause by either party, the court may at any time order that discovery be denied, restricted, conditioned, or deferred, or make such other order as is appropriate (see CPL 245.70[1]). It further provides that the court “may permit a party seeking or opposing a protective order under this section, or another affected person, to submit papers or testify on the record ex parte or in camera,” and that any such papers and a transcript of any such testimony may be sealed and constitute a part of the record on appeal (CPL 245.70[1]). …

The statute cannot be reasonably construed to permit a protective order to be sought entirely ex parte in every case. Since entirely ex parte proceedings should be allowed only in some cases, it necessarily follows that proceedings on applications for a protective order should be entirely ex parte only where the applicant has demonstrated the clear necessity for the entirety of the application, and the submissions in support of it, to be shielded from the opposing party. …

The necessity for appellate intervention would have been reduced had the Supreme Court, either before or after granting the subject protective order, afforded defense counsel the opportunity to be heard and thereafter determined whether to grant, adhere to, modify, or rescind the protective order. People v Bonifacio, 2020 NY Slip Op 00517, Second Dept 1-23-20

Similar issues and result in People v Reyes-Fuentes, 2020 NY Slip Op 00518, Second Dept 1-23-20

January 23, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED BUT NEVER INDICTED OR CONVICTED DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People’s application for an upward department was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Evidence defendant was charged but not indicted or convicted does not meet the clear and convincing standard:

A departure from the presumptive risk level is generally the exception, not the rule (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]). Where the People seek an upward departure, they must identify an aggravating factor that tends to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines, and prove the facts in support of the aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the People failed to prove the existence of an aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence. In granting an upward departure, the court relied upon the defendant’s criminal history. However, the Guidelines account for an offender’s criminal history by assessing points under risk factor 9, and the defendant’s history here was not so extraordinary, extensive, or serious as to demonstrate that the assessment of those points was inadequate to capture his actual risk of reoffense and danger to the community . Further, an upward departure could not properly be based upon certain prior conduct of which the defendant was charged but either never indicted or never convicted, as the People’s evidence regarding that alleged conduct did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard … . People v Pittman, 2020 NY Slip Op 00443, Second Dept 1-22-20

January 22, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Criminal Law

DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT BASED UPON THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF TWO JURORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, ordering a hearing, determined a juror’s expression of a romantic interest in a member of the prosecution team could amount to disqualifying juror misconduct. Allegations about another juror’s close relationship with a witness also warranted a hearing. The defense had moved to set aside the verdict alleging juror misconduct:

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, that branch of defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of alleged misconduct by two jurors (see CPL 330.40[2][f]).

The People’s trial preparation assistant, who assisted the trial prosecutors, disclosed that some time after the trial and before sentencing, he received a handwritten note in the mail from the jury foreperson, stating: “Now that the trial is over . . .” (ellipsis in original), followed by the juror’s first and last name, her juror number, the court part in which the trial had occurred, her phone number, and her address. The note also included a crossed-out phrase from which it could be inferred that the original version of the note had been written during the trial.

Under the circumstances, the note itself was sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact about whether the foreperson’s apparent romantic interest in the trial preparation assistant prevented her from deliberating fairly … . The assistant’s affidavit stating that he did not respond to the juror’s note or otherwise communicate with her at any time is not dispositive, as the issue is the juror’s misconduct or bias during the trial.

The court also erred with regard to a second juror. That juror had a sufficiently close relationship with a witness to warrant a hearing as to whether that juror engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose the relationship to the court. People v Guillen, 2020 NY Slip Op 00387, First Dept 1-21-20

January 21, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Criminal Law, Evidence

IN PERHAPS THE FIRST APPELLATE-JUSTICE REVIEW OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER THE NEW PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 245.70, JUSTICE SCHEINKMAN FOUND THE PEOPLE DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY WITHHOLDING FROM THE DEFENSE THE IDENTITIES OF WITNESSES IN THIS RAPE/MURDER CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in one of the first decisions under the new discovery provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, after an expedited review by Justice Scheinkman pursuant to CPL 245.70, reversing Supreme Court, determined the protective order prohibiting defense access to the names, addresses and other identifying information of witnesses in this rape/murder case must be vacated without prejudice:

CPL 245.70(1) provides that, upon a showing of good cause by either party, the court may order that disclosure and inspection be denied, restricted, conditioned, or deferred, or make such order as appropriate. The court is now specifically permitted to condition discovery on making the information available only to counsel for the defendant (see CPL 245.70[1]). Alternatively, the court is permitted to order defense counsel, or persons employed by the attorney or appointed by the court to assist in the defense, not to disclose physical copies of discoverable documents to the defendant or anyone else, subject to the defendant being able to access redacted copies at a supervised location … . Should the court restrict access to discovery by the defendant personally, the court is required to inform the defendant on the record that counsel is not permitted by law to disclose the material or information to the defendant … . * * *

This case is one of the first under this new review procedure. The threshold question is what standard is the intermediate appellate justice to apply in performing the expedited review. The statute is silent on that subject.

This Justice accepts the proposition that where a pure question of law is concerned, the reviewing justice decides the question de novo … . Where, however, the issue involves balancing the defendant’s interest in obtaining information for defense purposes against concerns for witness safety and protection, the question is appropriately framed as whether the determination made by the trial court was a provident exercise of discretion … .

… [T]he People’s affirmation was unaccompanied by any affidavit from anyone with personal or direct knowledge of the relevant circumstances. … [W]hile alleging that a witness had been approached in person and by use of social media by “associates” of the defendant, the People did not set forth the name of any such associate, the relationship between the defendant and any associate, the date or approximate date of the alleged improper approach, or even a general description of the incident. While the use of social media is alleged, no screen shot or other depiction of the communication was provided. Further, the four corners of the affirmation do not contain the identity of the witnesses subject to the contact that caused concern. In short, the sealed affirmation submitted to justify the issuance of the protective order is vague, speculative, and conclusory. Under these circumstances, the affirmation was legally insufficient to support the granting of the relief sought. People v Beaton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00372, Second Dept 1-17-20

January 17, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Appeals, Criminal Law

ANNOUNCING A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN ITS APPELLATE-REVIEW CRITERIA, THE 3RD DEPARTMENT NOW HOLDS THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE DATE, APPROXIMATE TIME OR PLACE OF A CHARGED OFFENSE IN A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) OR A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THEREFORE MUST BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, departing from its precedent based upon a recent (November 2019) ruling by the Court of Appeals, determined the failure to include the date, approximate time or place of the charged offense in a superior court information (SCI) and/or a waiver of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect:

Defendant’s sole contention on this appeal, which the People have conceded based on this Court’s decision in People v Busch-Scardino (166 AD3d 1314 [2018]), is that the waiver of indictment is invalid and the superior court information (hereinafter SCI) is jurisdictionally defective for failing to set forth the approximate time of the charged offense in accordance with CPL 195.20. Indeed, that has been the standard we have applied since Busch-Scardino, and we further recognize that this is not a case where the time of the offense “is unknown or, perhaps, unknowable” … . …

The Court of Appeals recently addressed the validity of appeal waivers in three consolidated appeals, and, in one of the appeals, the Court also addressed the validity of that defendant’s waiver of indictment with respect to charges involving child sexual abuse (People v Lang, ___ NY3d ___, ___, 2019 NY Slip Op 08545, *7-9 [2019]). * * *

The reasoning of Lang requires this Court to reassess and abandon the standard enunciated in Busch-Scardino. There is no question here that the waiver of indictment was signed in open court with counsel present in accordance with the procedural requirements set forth in NY Constitution, article I, § 6, which “establishes the prima facie validity of the waiver of the right to prosecution by indictment” … . The “approximate time” of the arson charge under review constitutes nonelemental factual information. Lang instructs that we should look not only at the waiver of indictment and the SCI, but also at the local accusatory instruments to ascertain whether adequate notice was provided. Here, the felony complaint mirrors both the waiver and the SCI by providing the date and specific address, but without specifying the approximate time. Nonetheless, defendant raised no objection before County Court, made no demand for a bill of particulars and “lodges no claim that he lacked notice of the precise crime[] for which he waived prosecution by indictment” … . In context, we conclude that the defect here was not jurisdictional and that defendant forfeited his challenge upon his plea of guilty … . People v Elric YY., 2020 NY Slip Op 00326, Third Dept 1-16-20

January 16, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Appeals, Criminal Law

IN A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT BASED UPON A NOVEMBER 2019 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE DATE, APPROXIMATE TIME OR PLACE OF A CHARGED OFFENSE IN A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) OR A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THEREFORE MUST BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, departing from its precedent based upon a recent (November 2019) ruling by the Court of Appeals, determined the failure to include the date, approximate time or place of the charged offense in a superior court information (SCI) and/or a waiver of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect. Any challenge to the SCI or waiver of appeal on this ground must be preserved and, if it is not, the challenge is forfeited by a guilty plea:

… [W]e note that this Court, relying on People v Boston (75 NY2d 585, 589 [1990]), has previously held that the failure to strictly comply with the statutory requirements for waiving indictment pursuant to CPL 195.20 — including the failure to include the approximate time of each offense charged in the waiver of indictment or SCI — constitutes a jurisdictional defect that may be raised at any time, is not subject to the preservation requirement and is not precluded by a defendant’s guilty plea or waiver of the right to appeal … . However, the Court of Appeals recently decided People v Lang (___ NY3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op 08545 [2019]) wherein it rejected the argument that omission of the approximate time of the charged offense in the waiver of indictment and/or SCI constitutes a jurisdictional defect — the same argument presently raised by defendant — specifically holding that the omission of such a fact presents a mere “technical challenge” as it constitutes “non-elemental factual information that is not necessary for a jurisdictionally-sound indictment” … . Accordingly, insofar as the subject waiver of indictment and SCI provided defendant with adequate notice of the date and location of the charged offenses, and as omission of the approximate time of the charged offense from the waiver of indictment and/or SCI constituted a nonjurisdictional defect … to which defendant did not object at a time when Supreme Court could have addressed the alleged deficiency, defendant’s present challenge was forfeited by his guilty plea … . People v Shindler, 2020 NY Slip Op 00327, Third Dept 1-16-20

January 16, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Evidence

THE CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THE REDACTED PORTIONS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AND WERE INCULPATORY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the redacted statement of the co-defendant (Quaile) should not have been admitted in evidence because it was clear the redacted portions referred to the defendant and were inculpatory. Defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him was violated:

… [A]lthough Quaile’s statement was redacted, the jury was allowed to see where portions were blacked out and, given that the statement focused upon defendant’s arrest and the items found in the trailer, there were “obvious indications that it was altered to protect the identity of a specific person,” namely, defendant … . The redacted statement further advised the jury that defendant was Quaile’s live-in boyfriend, that she did not know what the plastic bottle and tissues found in their bedroom were used for, that she did not know how to make methamphetamine and that she “did not know the answers” to some of [a sheriff’s] questions at the trailer. When those comments are considered in tandem with the location of the blacked-out text in the statement, they can “only be read by the jury as inculpating defendant” by suggesting that he had the information and know-how that Quaile lacked and was involved in the charged crimes … . The admission of the statement therefore violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. In view of County Court’s failure “to give the critical limiting instruction that the jury should not consider the statement itself against anyone but” Quaile, as well as the lack of methamphetamine in the trailer or test results tying the items found in the trailer to methamphetamine production, we cannot say that the evidence against defendant is overwhelming or ” that ‘there is no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted [statement] contributed to the conviction'” … . People v Stone, 2020 NY Slip Op 00323, Third Dept 1-16-20

January 16, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Appeals, Criminal Law, Evidence

THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE WAS TOO WEAK TO PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE APPELLATE COURT CAN NOT CONSIDER THE PEOPLE’S ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN HE MADE THE STATEMENTS BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT RULED ON BELOW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the identification evidence was too weak to constitute probable cause for defendant’s arrest. Therefore defendant’s motion to suppress his statements should have been granted. The court noted that the People’s argument that defendant was not in custody when the statements were made could not be considered because the issue was not ruled upon by the trial court:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, no evidence was presented at the hearing that the defendant was identified “from a photographic image taken from one of the videos.” Detective John Kenney testified that a witness provided a description of the person she had seen holding a gun after shots were fired, including that the person was riding a bicycle. Kenney indicated that the witness was shown a photograph taken from a video recorded outside a restaurant near the scene of the crime, and that the witness identified the person depicted in the photograph as the individual she had seen holding a gun. Kenney also testified that another witness identified the person depicted in that photograph as the individual he had seen riding a bicycle after hearing the gunshots. However, no testimony was elicited that the person depicted in the photograph was identified as the defendant. Further, Detective Patrick Henn testified that another video was recorded across the street from the defendant’s home “just before the crime,” showing a person who “appeared to be the defendant” leaving his home several blocks away from the scene of the crime on a bicycle. However, no testimony was elicited that the witnesses were shown a photograph taken from the video of the defendant’s home, let alone that the witnesses identified the person depicted in that video as the person they saw holding a gun or riding a bicycle after the shots were fired. The mere fact that a person believed to be the defendant was observed riding a bicycle several blocks away from the scene of the crime, shortly before the shooting, is too innocuous, standing alone, to support a finding of probable cause … . Further, Henn’s conclusory testimony that the defendant “became the prime suspect” based on “[v]ideos and canvasses conducted,” without further details, was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of probable cause … . Consequently, the People failed to establish that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, and thus, the court should have suppressed, as fruits of the unlawful arrest, the lineup identification testimony and the defendant’s statements made to law enforcement officials on October 24, 2011 … . People v Kamenev, 2020 NY Slip Op 00301, Second Dept 1-15-20

January 15, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys, Criminal Law, Immigration Law

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL WHEN HE PLED GUILTY IN 2007 THAT IF HE STAYED OUT OF TROUBLE WHILE ON PROBATION HE WOULD NOT BE DEPORTED, HOWEVER DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE GONE TO TRIAL, INCLUDING HIS UNDISPUTED STRONG DESIRE TO STAY IN THE US, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Martinez) was entitled to a hearing on his CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his 2007 judgment of conviction. At the time defendant pled guilty the court warned him there could be immigration consequences, but defense counsel told him he wouldn’t have to worry about deportation if he stayed out of trouble while on probation. In fact, however, deportation was mandatory. Supreme Court denied the motion based in part on defendant’s motivation for it, i.e., the expansion of his taxi business in Massachusetts. The First Department noted that plaintiff’s current motivation for the motion to vacate is irrelevant. The matter was sent back for a hearing in front of a different judge:

In the context of a guilty plea, the ultimate question of prejudice is whether there was a reasonable probability that a reasonable person in a defendant’s circumstances would have gone to trial if given constitutionally adequate advice … . A defendant must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational … . In that regard, appropriate factors to be weighed include, among others, evidence of defendant’s incentive, at the time of his plea, to remain in the United States rather than his native country; his respective family and employment ties at the time of his plea, to the United States, as compared to his country of origin; the strength of the People’s case; and defendant’s sentencing exposure … . In answering the prejudice question, judges should be cognizant that a noncitizen defendant confronts a very different calculus than confronts a United States citizen … . For a noncitizen defendant, “preserving [his] right to remain in the United States may be more important to [him] than any jail sentence”… . Thus, a determination of whether it would be rational for a defendant to reject a plea offer “must take into account the particular circumstances informing the defendant’s desire to remain in the United States” … .

Significantly, on the record before this Court, there is reason to believe that Martinez would have given paramount importance to avoiding deportation, if he had known that it was more than a mere possibility, but was an unavoidable consequence of his plea to an aggravated felony. Indeed, evidence regarding Martinez’s background completely supports his current assertion that his main focus has been always to remain in the United States. This much is undisputed: his long history in the United States, his efforts to become a citizen, his family circumstances, and his gainful employment in Massachusetts, all signal his strong connection to, and desire to remain in, the United States … . People v Martinez, 2020 NY Slip Op 00252, First Dept 1-14-20

January 14, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Criminal Law

DEFENDANT’S DISCARDING A BAG OF MARIJUANA AS HE WAS BEING PURSUED BY POLICE FOR AN OPEN-CONTAINER VIOLATION CONSTITUTED ATTEMPTED TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that defendant’s discarding a bag of marijuana as he was being pursued by a police officer for violating the city’s open-container law constituted attempted tampering with physical evidence, not tampering with physical evidence:

Here, the charge of tampering with physical evidence was based on the defendant’s act of discarding the plastic bag containing marijuana as he was being pursued by Officer Scuadroni for violating the City’s open-container law. Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s act of discarding the bag did not constitute an act of concealment within the meaning of Penal Law § 215.40(2). Nevertheless, since the defendant “engage[d] in conduct that tends to effect, and comes dangerously near to accomplishing, an act of concealment intended to suppress the physical evidence” … , there is legally sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of attempted tampering with physical evidence (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 215.40[2 …). Accordingly, we reduce the defendant’s conviction of tampering with physical evidence to attempted tampering with physical evidence … . People v Zachary, 2020 NY Slip Op 00165, Second Dept 1-8-20

January 8, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED BUT NEVER INDICTED OR CONVICTED DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).

DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT BASED UPON THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF TWO JURORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

THE CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THE REDACTED PORTIONS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AND WERE INCULPATORY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

DEFENDANT’S DISCARDING A BAG OF MARIJUANA AS HE WAS BEING PURSUED BY POLICE FOR AN OPEN-CONTAINER VIOLATION CONSTITUTED ATTEMPTED TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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