You are here: / Criminal Law
,

PARTICIPATION IN A PRISON SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAM WAS NOT ENOUGH TO AVOID A 10-POINT ASSESSMENT FOR FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined defendant’s participation in a prison sex offender treatment program did not preclude the assessment of 10 points for failing to accept responsibility for his misconduct. The additional 10 points raised defendant’s risk level from two to three:

Factor 12 of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) Risk Assessment Guidelines allows for the assessment of 10 points for a sex offender if he “has not accepted responsibility for his sexual misconduct.” This appeal raises the issue of whether (and to what extent) a sex offender’s participation in a sex offender treatment program is evidence that he has accepted responsibility for his misconduct. We conclude that a sex offender’s participation in a sex offender treatment program is some evidence that the offender has accepted responsibility and that such evidence must be considered in conjunction with any other reliable evidence bearing on the subject (e.g., statements by the sex offender). In light of all of the evidence relevant to the subject of defendant’s acceptance of responsibility for his misconduct, including his participation in a sex offender treatment program and his statements minimizing or denying responsibility for his misconduct, the SORA court correctly concluded that the People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant had not genuinely accepted responsibility for his misconduct, and, accordingly, properly assessed defendant 10 points for Factor 12. People v Solomon, 2021 NY Slip Op 07519, First Dept 12-28-21

 

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED JUROR 15 WAS ONE OF TWO JURORS WHO GAVE A NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT HOLD IT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IF HE DID NOT TESTIFY; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE RECORD DOES NOT IDENTIFY JUROR 15 AS ONE OF THE TWO JURORS AND DID NOT DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that a juror gave a non-verbal assurance that he would not hold it against the defendant if he did not testify. The dissent argued the record did not clearly indicate which jurors gave the non-verbal assurance:

We disagree with the dissent that “[t]here is no indication in the record that prospective juror number 15 was one of the two prospective jurors who were acknowledged by the court as having given some form of nonverbal assurance that they could follow its instructions.” Only three prospective jurors were questioned by defense counsel regarding their desire to hear from defendant. In response to the court’s follow-up questions, one prospective juror unequivocally indicated that he could not follow the court’s instructions regarding defendant’s failure to testify, and the court went on to ask, “[o]kay, anyone else? Can you follow that instruction whether you believe in it or not? I mean, obviously we talked about this. You both can? Okay. All right, thanks” … . Having already spoken to one of the three prospective jurors, it is clear that the court was addressing the remaining two prospective jurors who had expressed a desire to hear from defendant—including prospective juror number 15. Furthermore, in denying defense counsel’s for-cause challenge, the court stated on the record that both prospective juror number 15 and prospective juror number 16 “said they could follow [its] instructions. I asked them exactly on that . . . but they said no, they could follow it.”

From the dissent:

There is no indication in the record that prospective juror number 15 was one of the two prospective jurors who were acknowledged by the court as having given some form of a nonverbal assurance that they could follow its instruction, and the nature of the nonverbal assurance provided by those prospective jurors is not identified in the record. People v Smith, 2021 NY Slip Op 07406, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

,

THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the warrantless search of defendant’s residence by an evidence technician was not justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. A woman called 911 and reported she had found her roommate unconscious in the residence. When the evidence technician arrived she was told the roommate was dead. The technician then went through the residence taking pictures. She discovered what appeared to be illegal drugs. A search warrant was issued and drugs and a handgun were seized:

The court held that the initial search of the residence by the evidence technician was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a warrantless search in the presence of three elements: ” ‘(1) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief must be grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search must not be primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched’ ” … . …

Prior to engaging in her initial search, … the evidence technician had observed the body in the bathroom, and her suppression hearing testimony did not include any observation suggesting that a crime had occurred, much less that an assailant was still in the home or that there was an ongoing risk of harm … . … [N]othing in the 911 call or in the testimony of the officers who initially arrived at the residence suggested that the woman had been the victim of an attack … . … [T]he evidence technician lacked a ” ‘reasonable basis, approximating probable cause’ ” to associate any emergency that might have once existed, i.e., an unresponsive woman lying in the bathroom, to the search of the bedrooms of the residence … . People v Hidalgo-Hernandez, 2021 NY Slip Op 07404, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

THE JURY’S FINDING THAT THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ASSAULT SECOND STATUTE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s assault second conviction, determined the jury’s conclusion that the victim suffered “serious injury” was against the weight of the evidence:

Although the victim testified that he sustained a skull fracture … , the People also introduced expert medical testimony establishing that he did not have a skull fracture. In addition, although the victim testified to ongoing memory issues, there is evidence in the record establishing that he had several other concussions that could also have caused those issues, including one that occurred when he was struck by a metal bat only a few months after this incident. Consequently, we cannot conclude that “the jury was justified in finding . . . defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” … . People v Defio, 2021 NY Slip Op 07400, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION, THE TWO DISSENTERS WOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DESCRIBING THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS NOT CREDIBLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, rejected the argument that the police officer’s testimony at the suppression hearing describing the traffic stop was incredible. The two-justice dissent disgreed:

From the dissent:

… [W]e conclude that “the significant inconsistencies and gaps in memory . . . [in] the testimony of the police officers who testified at the hearing bear negatively on their overall credibility” … . Neither of the two officers who testified could recall with clarity any of the details of their stop of the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger, with one officer acknowledging that the only thing that he could recall was that he “smelled mari[h]uana.” The officers disagreed whether that smell was of burnt or burning marihuana. Inasmuch as both officers testified that they each had conducted innumerable traffic stops where marihuana was involved, their inability to recall further details regarding this particular stop undermines the reliability of the officers’ testimony. We therefore conclude that, because the lapses in the officers’ memory of the stop render their testimony unworthy of belief, the People failed to meet their burden of coming forward with sufficient evidence to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance … . People v Stroud, 2021 NY Slip Op 07375, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

,

FOR PURPOSES OF CLAIMANT’S ACTION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT, THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ACQUITTAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the claimant was retried and acquitted on criminal charges within the meaning of the Court of Claims Act in this action seeking damages for wrongful conviction and imprisonment:

… [T]he court erred in determining that claimant “was not retried.” To the contrary, the record establishes that “a new trial was ordered” and held inasmuch as the jury was sworn, the parties made opening statements, the prosecution called various witnesses and, following the close of the prosecution’s case, the criminal court granted claimant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal … . …

… [T]he court erred in determining that a trial order of dismissal pursuant to CPL 290.10 was not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty, i.e., an acquittal, for purposes of Court of Claims Act § 8-b (3) (b) (ii). Considering the remedial purpose of the statute (see § 8-b [1]) and the fact that an acquittal is a “useful and relevant indicator of innocence” … , … [T]here is no meaningful distinction for purposes of a claimant’s threshold showing between an acquittal by a trier of fact due to failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt … and a trial order of dismissal due to legally insufficient evidence … . Owens v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 07374, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ACQUITTED OF CHARGES STEMMING FROM THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATION OF INSURANCE PROCEEDS DUE OTHER BENEFICIARIES AND THEN SUED TWO INSURANCE COMPANIES; THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, CONVERSION AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY DID NOT ACCRUE UPON ACQUITTAL AND WERE THERFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action that did not require plaintiff’s innocence in a criminal matter were time barred. Plaintiff was acquitted of charges stemming from the allegation she appropriated life insurance proceeds which were due to other beneficiaries. Plaintiff then sued two insurance companies alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty. None of those causes of action accrued upon plaintiff’s acquittal. All were therefore time-barred:

Contrary to … the court’s conclusion, those causes of action did not accrue at the time the criminal proceeding terminated. The termination of a criminal proceeding is relevant for claims for malicious prosecution and legal malpractice arising out of a criminal proceeding … . For those claims, a plaintiff is required to make a showing of innocence, and thus the claims do not accrue until the plaintiff can assert the element of his or her innocence on the criminal charges … . Plaintiff here does not need to assert her innocence on the criminal charges as an element of the causes of action for breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty … . Morrow v Brighthouse Life Ins. Co. of NY, 2021 NY Slip Op 07373, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

,

THE SORA COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND DURING AN EXTENDED TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT SUPERVISED AS A MITIGATING FACTOR WHICH MAY WARRANT A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined County Court should have considered whether a downward department from the risk-level guidelines was warranted. Defendant, through and oversight, with respect to a previous conviction, was not registered as a sex offender and did not reoffend despite the absence of supervision:

… [T]he fact that defendant was at liberty while unsupervised for an extended period of time without any reoffending conduct is a mitigating factor not adequately taken into account by the guidelines … , and it is undisputed that defendant established the existence of that mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence … .

In view of the [SORA] court’s conclusion, it did not exercise its discretion to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an overassessment of defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism. … [W]e reverse the order and remit the matter to County Court to make that determination … . People v Edwards,  2021 NY Slip Op 07359, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE IN THIS BENCH TRIAL DID NOT EXPLICITLY RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPLICIT IN THE VERDICT AND THEREFORE THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the judge in this bench trial implicitly ruled on defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal when rendering the verdict. The dissent argued an explicit ruling on the motion was a necessary prerequisite to an appeal:

From the dissent:

… [D]uring the nonjury trial, the court expressly reserved decision on defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal. Although the Criminal Procedure Law requires a court to determine a motion on which it has reserved decision (see CPL 290.10 [1]; 320.20 [4]), the court here never again addressed that motion by name on the record. Rather, in rendering its verdict, the court stated merely that, “based upon the credible trial evidence, this [c]ourt finds the defendant guilty of . . . attempted assault in the second degree [because] there was legally sufficient proof that the defendant intended to cause the victim serious physical injury based upon his conduct, and [in] consideration of all the surrounding circumstances.”

In reaching the merits of defendant’s legal sufficiency contention, the majority tacitly concludes that the court implicitly denied defendant’s motion when it rendered its guilty verdict, likely due to the court’s reference to the “legally sufficient proof” supporting its finding of guilt. I respectfully disagree with this approach … . People v Dubois, 2021 NY Slip Op 07364, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AFTER A DEFENSE VERDICT; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the false arrest and false imprisonment action was properly dismissed after a defense verdict at trial. The police were informed that plaintiff, who was walking away, was involved in an altercation. The officer stood in front of plaintiff to inquire. The plaintiff did not respond and walked into the officer. The officer then made a warrantless arrest for obstruction of justice:

We conclude that the officer’s act of “stepping in front of [plaintiff] in an attempt to engage him was a continuation of the officer’s own common-law right to inquire, not a seizure” … . …

… [W]hile “[a]n individual to whom a police officer addresses a question has a constitutional right not to respond” … , that person does not have the right to attempt to “walk through”—and thereby make physical contact with—the officer … . * * *

From the dissent:

… [T]he officer was not authorized to forcibly stop plaintiff and lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiff for obstructing governmental administration in the second degree for plaintiff’s purported obstruction of such an unauthorized forcible stop. Shaw v City of Rochester, 2021 NY Slip Op 07346, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

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