You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

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

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE, THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AND THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was not adequately warned about the risks of representing himself:

The record “does not sufficiently demonstrate that defendant was aware of his actual sentencing exposure” … , including the potential for his sentences in two pending cases, arising from unrelated incidents, to run consecutively. The court also failed to inquire into defendant’s understanding of “the nature of the charges” … . This despite defendant’s admission that he did “[n]ot necessarily” understand the charges in one case and was “still coming to grips with the charges” in the other case. The court’s statement during the waiver colloquy that defendant was “facing felony charges” was inadequate for that purpose.

Moreover, the court’s inquiry did not “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” … . The court failed to warn defendant about the numerous pitfalls of representing himself before and at trial, such as unfamiliarity with legal terms, concepts, and case names; the potential challenges of cross-examining witnesses and delivering an opening statement and summation as a pro se criminal defendant. While there is no mandatory “catechism for this inquiry,” there must be a “searching inquiry” conducted by a court before permitting self-representation … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find that defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. People v Perry, 2021 NY Slip Op 05826, First Dept 10-26-21

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT GIVE COUNSEL MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF A SUBSTANTIVE JURY NOTE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge did not give counsel meaningful notice of a substantive jury note:

Pursuant to CPL 310.30, when a trial court receives a substantive jury inquiry, the court has two separate duties: “the duty to notify counsel and the duty to respond”… . With regard to the former duty, the court must provide counsel “notice of the actual specific content of the jurors’ request” … . A “trial court’s failure to provide counsel with meaningful notice of a substantive jury note is a mode of proceedings error that requires reversal” … .

Here, although marked as a court exhibit, the trial transcript does not reflect that the Supreme Court showed or read verbatim to counsel a jury note, which stated: “We would like the DNA results in regards to the blood smear on the banister.” People v Carillo, 2021 NY Slip Op 05710, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

,

RETRIAL VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY; DEFENDANT HAD MADE A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL WITH PREJUDICE AND DID NOT CONSENT TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE JURY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the retrial and dismissing the indictment, determined the trial court’s failure to procure defendant’s consent to discharge the jury after defendant’s motion for a mistrial with prejudice triggered the protection against double jeopardy:

Double jeopardy bars a retrial except as to a defendant who has requested or consented to the mistrial … . Here, the record does not show that either defendant consented to a mistrial without prejudice. Defendants initially made general motions for a mistrial, but on the next day they expressly limited their motions to requests for a mistrial with prejudice. Accordingly, when the court announced its ruling shortly afterwards, it should have obtained defendants’ unequivocal consent before discharging the first jury or else have continued the trial with the same jury … . The retrial thus violated the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy, and these prohibitions require reversal of defendants’ convictions and dismissal of the indictment … . Defendants’ double jeopardy claim does not require preservation, although it may be expressly waived … . However, there was no such waiver here. People v Lantigua, 2021 NY Slip Op 05671, First Dept 10-19-21

 

, ,

THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS PRETEXTUAL, OSTENSIBLY BASED ON A BURNED-OUT LICENSE-PLATE LIGHT; BUT THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE CANINE SNIFF BASED UPON A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; THEREFORE THE MATTER WAS BEYOND REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the canine sniff was justified by a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. The traffic stop was pretextual, ostensibly based on a burned-out license-plate light:

In the course of a stop predicated on the observation of traffic violations … defendant consented to a search of the backseat of his vehicle. Instead of conducting that search, the police officer walked his canine around the exterior of the vehicle and, in mere seconds, the canine alerted to the trunk. Defendant argues that law enforcement lacked founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and, thus, unlawfully conducted the exterior canine sniff search.

A canine sniff search of a vehicle’s exterior is lawful if police possess a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot … . Determinations regarding the existence of a founded suspicion of criminality involve mixed questions of law and fact … . Therefore, our review is “limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts’ determinations” … . …

Based on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, including the officers’ observations prior to and during the stop, there is record support for the determination that a founded suspicion of criminal activity existed here and, thus, the issue is beyond further review … .

From the dissent:

Mr. Blandford’s case illustrates a troubling aspect of police behavior: law enforcement can pursue someone they suspect of criminal behavior without a founded suspicion of criminality, wait for the right moment to stop that person for a minor traffic infraction, and then serve up a stew of flavorless facts to transform a stop in which they have no intrinsic interest into the search they sought before they had any evidentiary basis to suspect wrongdoing. Although this case illustrates that problem, its resolution should be much simpler than resolution of the systemic problem: here, the officers did not possess information sufficient to justify the canine search. People v Blandford, 2021 NY Slip Op 05619, CtApp 10-14-21

 

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