You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY, PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE THE BB GUN DISPLAYED DURING THE ROBBERY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CAUSING DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY; THEREFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE “DISPLAYED-WEAPON-COULD-NOT-CAUSE-DEATH-OR-SERIOUS-INJURY” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS UNCONTROVERTED THAT DEFENDANT DISPLAYED A BB GUN, SECOND DEGREE ROBBERY WAS THE ONLY AVAILABLE CHARGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division on different grounds, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a three-judge dissent, determined the trial judge properly refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense that the weapon displayed by defendant during the robbery was not capable of causing death or serious injury. Defendant had displayed BB gun during the robbery and was charged with first degree robbery. The dissent argued that, because it was uncontroverted that defendant displayed a BB gun, second degree robbery is the only available charge. Penal Law 160.15(4) provides “A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when he forcibly steals property and when, in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime:* * * [d]isplays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that such pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, could be discharged. Nothing contained in this subdivision shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, robbery in the second degree … .”:

​​… [T]he court properly denied [defendant’s] request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense. “When a defense declared by statute to be an ‘affirmative defense’ is raised at a trial, the defendant has the burden of establishing such defense by a preponderance of the evidence” (Penal Law § 25.00 [2]). The court must charge the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is “sufficient evidence for the jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the elements of the defense are satisfied, i.e., that the object displayed was not a loaded weapon [readily] capable of producing death or other serious physical injury” … . BB guns are capable of producing injury, including but not limited to protracted impairment of vision … . Whether a particular BB gun is “readily capable” of doing so is not a question that we can decide as a matter of law … .

Here, although defendant made a prima facie showing that the object he displayed during the robbery was a BB gun that the police recovered from his home, he presented no evidence concerning the capabilities of that particular gun. Given the absence of such evidence, “the members of the jury could do no more than speculate that defendant’s gun was not [readily] capable of causing death or other serious physical injury, and thus the court properly denied defendant’s request to submit the issue to them” … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 07082, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: When a defendant seeks a jury instruction on an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden to establish the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Here the defendant argued the BB gun he displayed during the robbery could not cause death or serious injury and he was therefore entitled to a jury instruction on the “displayed weapon could not cause death or serious injury” affirmative-defense to first degree robbery. But because defendant presented no evidence on the capabilities of the BB gun, the Court of Appeals held the defendant did not meet his burden of proof and the trial judge properly denied the request for the affirmative-defense jury instruction.​

 

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE A VERMONT OFFENSE WAS EQUIVALENT TO A NEW YORK VIOLENT FELONY OFFENSE; THEREFORE THE PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY ADJUDICATION WAS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s persistent violent felony offender adjudication, determined the People did not prove that a Vermont assault and robbery offense was the equivalent to a New York violent felony offense:

While the defendant admitted at sentencing that he was the person convicted of two prior felonies … , the People failed to satisfy their burden of establishing that the defendant was convicted of an offense in a foreign jurisdiction that is equivalent to a violent felony in New York … . The People failed to demonstrate that the Vermont offense of assault and robbery with a dangerous weapon … is equivalent to a New York criminal offense designated as a violent felony … . Accordingly, we modify the judgment by vacating the defendant’s adjudication as a persistent violent felony offender and the sentences imposed thereon, and we remit the matter to the Supreme Court … for resentencing … . People v Parris, 2025 NY Slip Op 07028, Second Dept 12-17-25

Practice Point: If a foreign conviction is the basis of a persistent violent felony offender adjudication, the People must prove the foreign offense is the equivalent of a New York violent felony. If the People fail to prove the equivalence the adjudication will be vacated on appeal.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER (DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE) AND FIRST DEGREE MANSLAUGHTER (RECKLESS) FOR THE DEATH OF A SEVERELY ABUSED CHILD; THE EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS OF THE “DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE” ELEMENT BY THE MAJORITY AND DISSENT ILLUSTRATE THE DIFFICULTY OF PROVING BOTH “DEPRAVITY” AND “INDIFFERENCE” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s second degree murder (depraved indifference) and first degree manslaughter (reckless) convictions for the death of a severely abused child, over an comprehensive dissent, determined the facts supported the “depraved indifference” element. The dissent disagreed:

Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the fact that he began immediate life-saving measures on the victim and called his wife to summon medical aid does not dictate a different result. Rather “[t]he People were required to show that defendant had the necessary mens rea of callous indifference when the crime occurred, not at all times thereafter” … . Thus, where the defendant is the one who inflicted the fatal injuries, the sincerity and motivation behind post-injury rescue efforts distill to “implicated credibility questions for the jury to resolve” … . We find no reason to disturb the jury’s finding that defendant’s “belated expressions of concern did not reflect any [genuine] interest in the victim’s welfare” … .

From the dissent:

Ask 12 random people on the street to describe the mental state of someone who stomps on a young child’s stomach so hard that it kills him. Each will say something like, “cruel,” “brutal,” [*9]”monstrous” — maybe even “depraved” … . The jurors here rationally arrived at the same conclusion — and, indeed, “the horrific nature of defendant’s assault of the [victim] was clearly intended to be encompassed within the depraved indifference murder of a child statute” … .

But depravity is not enough. Depraved indifference to human life “is something even worse” … . To prove this rare state of mind, there must be evidence of “wanton cruelty, brutality, or callousness, combined with an utter indifference as to whether the victim lives or dies” … . That combination is not present here. Consequently, defendant’s conviction of depraved indifference murder must be reversed, and that count of the indictment dismissed. People v Greene, 2025 NY Slip Op 06931, Third Dept 12-11-25

Practice Point: “Depraved indifference” is a troublesome concept. How do the People prove both “depravity” and “indifference?” Consult this decision for an in-depth discussion.

 

, , , , ,

REMITTAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE SORA RISK-LEVEL-ASSESSEMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD BY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTION LAW; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THAT AN AVAILABLE GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS NOT RAISED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined (1) appellate review of the SORA risk-level assessment was precluded by the judge’s failure to place on the record its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Correction Law, and (2) defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel in that there was a ground for a downward departure which was not raised. Defendant was assessed 30 points based on a prior conviction for endangering the welfare of a child. However there was no sexual offense involved in that conviction and a downward departure was therefore possible:

“The failure to include the necessary findings prevents this Court from conducting a meaningful appellate review of defendant’s designation as a risk level two sex offender and would, alone, require remittal for County Court to comply with the statute” (… see Correction Law § 168-n [3] …). * * *

… County Court was required to assess 30 points under risk factor 9 based upon defendant’s undisputed prior conviction of endangering the welfare of a child, “without regard to whether the underlying offense involved conduct that is sexual in nature” … . This is because “[t]he Board decided to treat endangering the welfare of a child as if it were a sex crime because it generally involves sexual misconduct, especially when it is part of a plea bargained disposition” … . However, the risk assessment guidelines also provide that, “[w]here a review of the record indicates that there was no such [sexual] misconduct, a departure may be warranted” … . People v Pribble, 2025 NY Slip Op 06936, Third Dept 12-11-25

Practice Point: If a SORA risk-level-assessment is not supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law in the record appellate review is not possible and remittal is required.

Practice Point: If, as here, there is an available ground for a downward departure which is not raised, the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENSE IN THIS MURDER CASE WAS BASED ON THE LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT WAS THE ASSAILANT, THE DEFENDANT WAS STILL ENTITLED TO A JUSTIFICATION-DEFENSE JURY-INSTRUCTION; THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE JUSTIFICATION-DEFENSE JURY CHARGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; IN ADDITION, THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED CVIL RIGHTS LAW 52 BY ALLOWING THE MEDIA TO RECORD TESTIMONIAL PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the defense request for a justification-defense jury-instruction should have been granted. The defendant and the victim got into a bar fight after defendant called the victim names. The victim, who was larger than the defendant, initially knocked defendant down. After the defendant got up, the victim was stabbed. The knife which stabbed the victim was not found It was not clear who was the initial aggressor in the fight. And there was evidence the victim may have had a knife. The Third Department noted that the court erred when it allowed audiovisual coverage of the testimonial portion of the trial (Civil Rights Law 52):

“A justification charge must be given if there is any reasonable view of the evidence, when it is considered in the light most favorable to the defendant, that would allow the jury to conclude that the defendant’s actions were justified” … . In order “for a defendant to be entitled to a justification charge with respect to the use of deadly physical force, the record must contain evidence that the defendant reasonably believed that the victim was using or was about to use deadly physical force and that the defendant could not safely retreat” … . A charge on the defense of justification remains appropriate where a defendant pursued other defense strategies at trial, including that he or she did not intend to cause the victim’s death … ,was not present or was not the assailant … .The failure to provide a justification charge under such circumstances constitutes reversible error warranting a new trial … .

Here, the evidence in the record fails to indicate who was the initial aggressor with respect to the use of physical force, but rather suggests both individuals started fighting immediately after someone — presumably defendant — yelled derogatory remarks at the victim. It was unrefuted that the victim was larger than defendant and had gained the upper hand during the fight, knocking defendant down with several blows. The further question is whether or not defendant was the initial aggressor with respect to deadly physical force … . … [T]he police recovered an open folding knife on the patio adjacent the picnic tables where the altercation began, near a pool of blood. … [A] reasoned view of the evidence is that the victim had unfolded the knife prior to being stabbed by defendant. * * * [W]e believe that there was a reasonable view of the evidence which would permit the jury to conclude that defendant’s conduct was justified … . People v Mack, 2025 NY Slip Op 06757, Third Dept 12-4-25

Practice Point: No matter what the defense strategy is, a defendant is entitled to a justification-defense jury instruction if a reasonable view of the evidence would support finding defendant’s conduct justified.

Practice Point: Civil Rights Law 52 prohibits audiovisual coverage of the testimonial portion of a criminal trial.

 

ON APPEAL, CONVICTIONS FOR “INCLUSORY, CONCURRENT COUNTS” WERE VACATED, AND SEPARATE CONVICTIONS FOR A “CONTINUING OFFENSE” WERE VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined several inclusory concurrent counts and certain convictions for a “continuing offense” must be vacated:

CPL 300.30(4) provides that “[c]oncurrent counts are ‘inclusory’ when the offense charged in one is greater than any of those charged in the others and when the latter are all lesser offenses included within the greater” … . CPL 300.40(3)(b) provides, in relevant part, that with respect to inclusory concurrent counts, “[a] verdict of guilty upon the greatest count submitted is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count submitted” … . Here, the defendant was convicted of five counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree … and three counts of criminal possession of a firearm … . Because the counts charging criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm are inclusory concurrent counts, the convictions of criminal possession of a firearm … must be vacated … .

… The defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under counts 4 and 10 of the indictment subjected the defendant to double jeopardy. “An indictment cannot charge a defendant with more than one count of a crime that can be characterized as a continuing offense unless there has been an interruption in the course of conduct” … . Here, the indictment charged the defendant with three separate counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03(3) for the uninterrupted possession of single weapon. Such possession was continuous and “‘constituted a single offense for which he could be prosecuted only once'” … . As such, we vacate the defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under counts 4 and 10 of the indictment, vacate the sentences imposed thereon, and dismiss those counts of the indictment. People v Stewart, 2025 NY Slip Op 06737, Second Dept 12-3-25

Practice Point: Here criminal possession of firearm convictions were vacated as “inclusory, concurrent counts” of criminal possession of a weapon second degree.

Practice Point: Here three criminal possession of a weapon convictions related to a single “continuing offense” of criminal possession of a weapon. Two of the convictions were therefore vacated.

 

, , ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT ENSURE THAT DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge did not ensure the pro se defendant was aware of the risks of representing himself or the benefits of having an attorney:

… [T]he court failed to conduct the requisite inquiry before allowing the defendant to proceed pro se and the record does not reveal that the defendant was aware of the disadvantages of representing himself or the benefits of having an attorney … . A court must determine that the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel is made competently, intelligently, and voluntarily before allowing that defendant to represent himself or herself … . To make that evaluation, the court “must undertake a ‘searching inquiry’ designed to ‘insur[e] that a defendant [is] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel'” … . The court’s inquiry “must accomplish the goals of adequately warning a defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se, and apprising a defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication” … .

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court inquired about the defendant’s pedigree information, aside from the fact that he did not have a law license, or that the court ascertained whether the defendant was aware of the risks inherent in proceeding without a trial attorney and the benefits of having counsel represent him at trial … . The court failed to ensure that the defendant understood the potential sentence that could be imposed or the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation … . The court neither “tested defendant’s understanding of choosing self-representation nor provided a reliable basis for appellate review” … . In addition, the defendant continually engaged in disruptive or obstreperous conduct … . Under these circumstances, the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to counsel was ineffective and the defendant is entitled to a new trial … . People v Hall, 2025 NY Slip Op 06727, Second Dept 12-3-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how a judge, faced with a defendant who wishes to represent himself, should handle the “searching Inquiry” to ensure the defendant is aware of the risks.​

 

, ,

THE PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO CONSENT TO SEARCHES FOR DRUGS AND WEAPONS WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO HIS REHABILITATION FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT; THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was not valid and went on to find that the probation condition requiring defendant to consent to “search of his person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, gun/firearm, or other weapon or contraband” was not reasonably related to his rehabilitation for disorderly conduct:

… [The record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal … . The Supreme Court’s oral explanation of the appeal waiver and its consequences was unclear and incomplete, and the written waiver cannot be relied upon to cure the deficiency because “the court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the written waiver, discussed it with his attorney, or was aware of its contents” … .

… [T]he conditions of probation “shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him [or her] to do so” (Penal Law § 65.10[1]). In addition to specific conditions enumerated in the statute, the court may, in its discretion, impose “any other conditions reasonably related to [the defendant’s] rehabilitation” … and “any other reasonable condition as the court shall determine to be necessary or appropriate to ameliorate the conduct which gave rise to the offense or to prevent the incarceration of the defendant” … . Therefore, sentencing courts may require a defendant to consent to searches by his or her probation officer for weapons, illegal drugs, or other contraband so long as the condition is “individually tailored in relation to the offense” and “the defendant’s particular circumstances, including his or her background, history, and proclivities” … .

Here, the defendant’s only prior conviction was for disorderly conduct, a violation … , the offense at issue did not involve the use of a weapon or alcohol or other substances, and the defendant was not under the influence of any substances at the time of the offense. … [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing Condition No. 28, as that condition “was not individually tailored in relation to the offense, and was not, therefore, reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life” … . People v Gibson, 2025 NY Slip Op 06724, Second Dept 12-3-25

Practice Point: Here the defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct which did not involve a weapon or drugs. The probation condition requiring defendant to submit to searches for drugs or weapons was struck.

 

,

THE PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SUPPORT DEPENDENTS AND MEET FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION; DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF ASSAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, striking the probation condition requiring defendant to “support dependents and meet other family responsibilities’, determined the condition was not reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation. Defendant was convicted of assault:

Pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10(1), the conditions of probation “shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or assist him [or her] to do so” … . “In Penal Law § 65.10(2), the Legislature set forth a list of conditions intended to be rehabilitative” … , including the condition that a defendant “[s]upport his [or her] dependents and meet other family responsibilities” (Penal Law § 65.10[2][f]). “The statute ‘quite clearly restricts probation conditions to those reasonably related to a defendant’s rehabilitation'” … . All enumerated probation conditions under Penal Law 65.10 must be “tailored to the particular defendant’s case” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improperly imposed Condition No. 14. This condition was “not individually tailored in relation to the offense and therefore, was not reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation or necessary to insure that he will lead a law-abiding life” … . People v Aldea, 2025 NY Slip Op 06716, Second Dept 12-3-25

Practice Point: Courts are striking the probation condition requiring defendant to support dependents when it is not related to the underlying offense, assault in this case.​

 

,

THE POLICE STARTED FOLLOWING DEFENDANT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE CROSSED THE STREET TO AVOID THEM; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE GROUNDS FOR A COMMON-LAW INQUIRY AND NOTHING DEFENDANT DID AFTER THE STREET STOP JUSTIFIED THE LEVEL THREE SEIZURE OF THE DEFENDANT; THE WEAPON FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S POCKET SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined what the police saw did not warrant a common-law inquiry on the street and the subsequent level three seizure of the defendant was not justified. Apparently the police felt defendant crossed the street to avoid them, the police followed him and saw him pass something to a woman, after defendant was stopped he was told to take his hand out of his jacket pocket and did so, the officer testified a heavy object was in the jacket pocket, the defendant was then handcuffed and a handgun was found in the pocket:

Defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted. Although we decline to disturb the court’s credibility determinations … , notwithstanding our concerns about discrepancies between the officers’ testimony and what is shown in the body-worn camera footage, the initial inquiry and subsequent seizure were still unjustified. Even crediting the officers’ testimony that their suspicion was aroused when defendant and the woman crossed the street to avoid their patrol car, and then they later observed him pass a small object to the woman, the totality of the circumstances did not give rise to the level of suspicion required for a common-law inquiry … . Neither officer could identify what object was passed from defendant to the woman — one testified that “it could have been anything” — nor otherwise articulate why, from this innocuous behavior, they had a “founded suspicion that criminality was afoot” to warrant a level two encounter … . The police were not responding to a call, there was ambiguous testimony as to whether the encounter took place in a high crime area, and the woman did not give defendant money in exchange or immediately leave “without any kind social interaction” … .

Similarly, this Court’s review of the record, including the body-worn camera video recording of the encounter, indicates that the police were not justified in their escalation to the level three seizure in restraining defendant’s wrists simply because, after he was detained, and defendant complied with the officers’ request that he show his hands, he turned his body away from one officer, who observed a “shift in weight” in defendant’s jacket pocket … . Even if there had been a bulge in defendant’s pocket, that observation alone does not imply a reasonable conclusion that defendant was armed … . Defendant’s hands were in clear view when the officers seized him, and nothing in the record indicates that defendant was armed or posed a threat to safety to justify him being frisked … . People v Small, 2025 NY Slip Op 06665, First Dept 12-2-25

Practice Point: This decision illustrates the level of suspicion required to justify a common-law inquiry on the street. Here the police thought the defendant crossed the street to avoid them and they saw defendant pass something to a woman, but could not say what it was. That was not enough.

Practice Point: This decision also illustrates the level of suspicion required to justify a level three seizure on the street. Here defendant was told to remove his hand from his pocket and did so. The police testified there was a bulge in the pocket, but defendant’s hands were visible. The police were not justified in handcuffing the defendant and searching his pocket.

 

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