You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDITIONED ITS SANDOVAL RULING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CROSS-EXAMINES THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR CRIMINAL HISTORIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the judge’s ruling that defendant can be cross-examined about prior convictions if the defense cross-examines the People’s witnesses on their criminal histories was improper:

A trial court may “make an advance ruling as to the use by the prosecutor of prior convictions or proof of the prior commission of specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts for the purpose of impeaching a defendant’s credibility” … . “[A] balance must here be struck between the probative worth of evidence of prior specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts on the issue of the defendant’s credibility on the one hand, and on the other the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant, measured both by the impact of such evidence if it is admitted after his testimony and by the effect its probable introduction may have in discouraging him [or her] from taking the stand on his [or her] own behalf” and thereby denying the jury significant material evidence … . These considerations “simply do not apply to a witness who is not a defendant, and cross-examination of such a witness should therefore be permitted with respect to any immoral, vicious or criminal act committed by him [or her] which may reflect upon his [or her] character and show him [or her] to be unworthy of belief” … .

… Supreme Court failed to engage in the appropriate balancing between the probative worth of the convictions on the issue of the defendant’s credibility against the possible prejudice to the defendant … , and, instead, improperly conditioned its Sandoval ruling on whether defense counsel would impeach the People’s witnesses with their criminal histories. …  Whether the defendant impeaches the credibility of the People’s witnesses during cross-examination based upon those witnesses’ criminal histories, or whether the People’s witnesses testify, are not relevant factors to consider in making a Sandoval ruling … . People v Brannon, 2021 NY Slip Op 06184, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

THE JUDGE DID NOT ENSURE THAT DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF A JURY TRIAL WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s manslaughter and criminal possession of a weapon convictions, determined the judge did not make an adequate inquiry to ensure defendant’s waiver of a jury trial was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Although the issue was not preserved, the appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

A defendant’s waiver of the right to a jury trial is governed by CPL 320.10, which provides, in relevant part, that a defendant “may at any time before trial waive a jury trial and consent to a trial without a jury in the superior court in which the indictment is pending. . . . Such waiver must be in writing and must be signed by the defendant in person in open court in the presence of the court, and with the approval of the court” … . In addition, the record as a whole must also reflect that “[t]he circumstances surrounding the waiver . . . support the conclusion that it was knowing, intelligent and voluntary” … . While the trial judge eliciting the defendant’s “full understanding of the importance of the right being waived” … is considered good practice, “no particular catechism is required to establish the validity of a jury trial waiver” … .

… [A]t the time of the purported jury waiver, the 76-year-old defendant—who had no prior contact with the criminal justice system other than a disorderly conduct violation dating back to 1980—had a recent history of paranoid delusional thinking and possible early dementia and was being treated with anti-psychotic medication. The defendant had been examined several times pursuant to CPL article 730 and had repeatedly been found unfit to proceed in the two years immediately following his arrest. … [D]uring the very terse oral colloquy that preceded the signing of the written waiver, the Supreme Court did not ask the defendant, for instance, if he was compliant with his anti-psychotic medication and was able to understand the proceedings. Indeed, the court failed to ask the defendant a single question relating to the waiver. People v Black, 2021 NY Slip Op 06183, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

DEFENDANT’S UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT CONVICTION MERGED WITH OFFENSES OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, applying the merger doctrine and considering the unpreserved issue in the interest of justice, determined the unlawful imprisonment conviction must be vacated:

[Defendant was convicted] of coercion in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, menacing in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, and reckless driving … . * * *

… [U]pon exercising our interest of justice jurisdiction, we conclude that the merger doctrine precludes the defendant’s conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree because the confinement of the complaining witness in the defendant’s car was only the incidental means to the accomplishment of the conduct underlying the counts of which the defendant was acquitted … . Thus, the conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree must be vacated and that count of the indictment dismissed. The defendant’s unpreserved contention that the merger doctrine applies to other offenses for which he was convicted is without merit … . People v Sims, 2021 NY Slip Op 06200, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO AN ARMED FELONY, HE WAS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH” ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED AFFORDING HIM YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined Supreme Court should have found defendant to be an “eligible youth” and then considered whether mitigating circumstances warranted youthful offender status:

While the ultimate determination as to whether an “eligible youth” (CPL 720.20[1]) should be afforded youthful offender status must be made “[a]fter receipt of a written report of the investigation and at the time of pronouncing sentence” … , there is no such requirement with respect to the initial determination as to whether the defendant is an “eligible youth” … .

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in finding that the defendant was ineligible for youthful offender status. Pursuant to CPL 720.10(3), although the defendant entered a plea of guilty to an armed felony offense in which he was the sole participant, he could be eligible for youthful offender status if there were “mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed” … . Such mitigating circumstances include “‘a lack of injury to others or evidence that the defendant did not display a weapon during the crime'” … . Here, there is no indication in the record that the defendant displayed the firearm which was recovered from his backpack, that the defendant caused or threatened any injury to another individual, or that the defendant intended to use the firearm against another individual. Consequently, the court should have determined that the defendant is an “eligible youth,” and thus, proceeded to determine whether the defendant is entitled to youthful offender status pursuant to CPL 720.20(1) … . People v Morris, 2021 NY Slip Op 06195, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BY A DETECTIVE’S TESTIM0NY ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF A STATEMENT ALLEGEDLY MADE BY A NONTESTYING ACCOMPLICE; THE ERROR WAS PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF, NOT DEFENSE COUNSEL, CITING CRAWFORD V WASHINGTON (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing the murder conviction and ordering a new trial, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined a detective’s testimony about what a nontestifying accomplice (Andy Dabydeen) said violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. Although defense counsel did not object to the detective’s testimony, the defendant himself objected after the fact, citing Crawford v Washington, 541 US 51, which preserved the issue for appeal:

After the defendant continued to deny any involvement in the murder, the detective confronted him by saying that “Andy had told us what had happened.” The detective further testified that, shortly thereafter, upon returning from the bathroom, the defendant reacted to that information by stating that he could not believe that Dabydeen had “snitched” on him. …

… [W]e find that the defendant’s objection—albeit made after the detective had finished testifying and the People had rested—was sufficiently specific to draw the Supreme Court’s attention to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause problems attendant to the People’s use, as part of their case-in-chief, of Dabydeen’s out-of-court testimonial statement directly implicating the defendant in the murder. …

This is not to suggest that the People are precluded from giving some context to the defendant’s statement that Dabydeen had “snitched” on him. We merely emphasize that the People could have done so without disclosing the substance of Dabydeen’s incriminating statement … . People v Lockley, 2021 NY Slip Op 06192, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

THE FEDERAL DRUG CONVICTION WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A VIOLATION OF PENAL LAW 220.39 FOR SECOND-FELONY-OFFENDER PURPOSES; IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THIS DECISION OVERRULED FIRST DEPARTMENT PRECEDENT, OR WHETHER A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT WOULD HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE TWO OFFENSES WERE EQUIVALENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the federal drug conviction was not the equivalent of a violation of Penal Law 220.39, Therefore the federal conviction could not be the basis for second felony offender status. It is not clear whether this decision overruled other First Department decisions to the contrary, or whether a review of the federal accusatory instrument would demonstrate an equivalency:

Defendant was adjudicated a second felony offender based on a federal conviction for distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 USC § 841(a)(1). That provision is not equivalent to Penal Law § 220.39 because the federal crime has a broader knowledge element, requiring only that the defendant “knowingly or intentionally . . . possess with intent to . . . distribute . . . a controlled substance,” as opposed to having particular knowledge of the drug type actually possessed … . The cases in which this Court has upheld 21 USC § 841(a)(1) as the equivalent of a New York felony did not address this discrepancy in the breadth of the knowledge element; other equivalency issues were raised in those cases … . People v Campanioni, 2021 NY Slip Op 06105, First Dept 11-9-21

 

,

THE PLEA AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE FULFILLED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROMISED SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY A MOTION, THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the plea was invalid because the plea agreement could not be fulfilled. Defendant was promised participation in the shock incarceration program, but a prior violent felony conviction rendered him ineligible. The court noted that the argument the plea was not voluntary (because the promise could not be fulfilled) was not preserved for appeal by a postallocution motion. The appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

There is no dispute that, in light of defendant’s prior violent felony conviction, he was not in fact eligible for participation in a shock incarceration program … . Nor is there any question that a judicial mandate for shock incarceration was part and parcel of defendant’s plea agreement … . “A guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored” … . As the promise made here cannot be honored, and given defendant’s insistence that his plea was involuntary, we deem vacatur of the plea and remittal to County Court for further proceedings to be the appropriate remedy  … . People v Regan, 2021 NY Slip Op 06007, Third Dept 11-4-21

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL BUT COUNTY COURT DID NOT RULE ON IT; MATTER REMITTED FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter, noted that defense counsel submitted evidence in support of a downward departure from the presumptive risk level but County Court made no findings on the request:

The record reflects that defendant’s counsel submitted various evidence, including a letter from a social worker who apparently was treating defendant and information regarding, among other things, defendant’s consistent compliance with probation, in support of the request for a downward departure. As County Court did not set forth on the record any findings or conclusions on that request, we are unable to assess the court’s reasoning. As such, we reverse and remit the matter for County Court to determine whether a departure from the presumptive risk level indicated by defendant’s point total is warranted and to set forth its requisite findings of fact and conclusions … . People v Hoffman, 2021 NY Slip Op 06013, Third Dept 11-4-21

 

, ,

ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY; SEVERAL CONVICTIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on several counts, determined the evidence the robbery complainants suffered physical injury was legally insufficient, and the weakness of the identification evidence rendered several convictions against the weight of the evidence:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). Here, both complainants testified at trial that they were hit from behind on the head. Neither of the complainants sought medical attention. One complainant testified that he had pain that lasted two days, and did not testify that he took any medication to treat his pain. The other complainant testified that his pain lasted for about one week and that he treated it with ice and Advil. Under these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence that either of the complainants suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9) … . Accordingly, we vacate the defendant’s convictions of robbery in the second degree … .  * * *

Neither of the complainants who were robbed on February 28, 2016, was able to identify the defendant as one of their assailants, and their descriptions of their assailants as young Hispanic/Latino men about five foot six inches tall wearing dark clothing was not sufficiently distinctive to support an inference that the defendant committed the February 28, 2016 crimes. The modus operandi of the crimes committed on February 28, 2016, and February 29, 2016, was likewise not sufficiently distinctive to support an inference that, because the evidence supported an inference that the defendant committed the February 29, 2016 crimes, he also committed the February 28, 2016 crimes. People v Rodriguez, 2021 NY Slip Op 05990, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEEMED HARMLESS, IT WAS ERROR TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT SHACKLED DURING A PORTION OF THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant should not have been shackled during the trial, but deemed the error harmless:

Defendant … contends that County Court erred in allowing him to be shackled during a portion of the trial. It is well settled that “a defendant has a right to be free of visible restraints during criminal proceedings unless the trial court states a case-specific reason for their use” … . The use of shackles has been deemed appropriate “for reasons of security, to prevent disruption of the trial, harm to those in the courtroom, escape or release of the accused, or the commission of other crimes” … . The record discloses that, in making its determination, County Court considered the nature of the crime with which defendant was charged, deferred to the correction officers’ recommendations and referenced defendant’s verbal outbursts throughout the morning. These are insufficient reasons to restrain defendant … .

… [W]e are satisfied that this error was harmless as the evidence demonstrated that defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and there was no reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome of the trial. We are even more confidant of this conclusion in light of the fact that County Court gave curative instructions to the jury on numerous occasions — including during jury selection, at the commencement of the trial and during final jury instructions — and especially considering that the jury was aware that defendant was already incarcerated … . People v Banch, 2021 NY Slip Op 05894, Third Dept 10-28-21

 

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