You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO STAB THE VICTIM WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s assault convictions, determined the evidence defendant shared the co-defendant’s intent to stab the victim was insufficient:

Defendant’s convictions of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree, charged under an acting in concert theory, were not supported by legally sufficient evidence …  These charges required proof that when the codefendant stabbed the victim, defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to do so; defendant was not convicted of any assault crimes where his liability was based on his intent to commit robbery. During a robbery attempt, the codefendant stabbed the victim from behind several times with a small knife. However, there was no evidence that defendant, who was standing in front of the victim and restraining him, knew that the codefendant had a knife or was planning to use it. “[T]he use of the knife was not open and obvious” … , and defendant released the victim within seconds of the stabbing. Under these circumstances, the record does not support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was aware of the use of the knife but continued to participate in the assault … . Accordingly, the evidence did not establish defendant’s accessorial liability (see Penal Law § 20.00) for these crimes. People v Grosso, 2021 NY Slip Op 05640, First Dept 10-14-21

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS A DINNER GUEST IN HIS FRIEND’S APARTMENT WHEN THE POLICE RAIDED IT; OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING THE RAID LED TO A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE APARTMENT; DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE RECEIVED MAIL AT THE APARTMENT; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH AND THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive, two-judge dissent, determined defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied without holding a hearing. The majority concluded defendant did not sufficiently allege standing to contest to search. Defendant was a dinner guest in his friend’s apartment at the time it was raided by the police. Evidence observed by the police during the raid was used to procure the search warrant:

CPL 710.60 (1) requires that a motion for suppression of physical evidence must state the ground or grounds of the motion and must contain sworn allegations of fact. CPL 710.60 (3) permits summary denial of a suppression motion where the motion papers do not provide adequate sworn allegations of fact … . The suppression court did not abuse its discretion in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, that branch of defendant’s motion which was to suppress the physical evidence recovered upon the search of the apartment pursuant to a search warrant that had been executed after his arrest, because the allegations in the motion papers were insufficient to warrant a hearing.

… In denying defendant’s motion, the suppression court stated that “defendant has failed to sufficiently allege standing to challenge the search of the subject premises,” which is the gravamen of our holding today.  Defendant’s remaining arguments addressed by the dissent, including the assertion that dinner guests have an expectation of privacy in the home of their hosts, are academic.

From the dissent:

Mr. Ibarguen’s [defendant’s] motion papers allege that he was a lawful invitee whose mail was delivered to that apartment and Mr. Ibarguen testified to having been at dinner at his friends’ house “all night.” Those facts support his claim that as a social guest, he held a legitimate expectation of privacy in at least some part of the searched apartment enabling him to challenge the legality of the warrantless search and suppress evidence recovered therein. People v Ibarguen, 2021 NY Slip Op 05617, CtApp 10-14-21

 

,

IN HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF WEAPONS, DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE DID NOT KNOW THE WEAPONS, WHICH BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE, WERE STORED AT HIS MOTHER’S HOUSE, WHERE HE DID NOT RESIDE; THIS CLAIM OF INNOCENCE (POSSESSION WAS NOT “VOLUNTARY”) WAS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED TO WARRANT A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant was charged with possession of weapons found in his mother’s house. In his motion to withdraw his plea he explained he did not reside in his mother’s house and the weapons, which belonged to someone else, were stored in the house without his knowledge or consent:

The defendant contended, in essence, that he did not voluntarily possess the weapons at issue. * * *

… [T]he defendant’s claim of innocence was “supported” by evidentiary submissions … , which “raised the possibility of a . . . defense” … . The defendant’s submissions provided “tenable support” … for his assertion that he did not voluntarily possess the weapons at issue because he was not “aware of his physical possession or control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate it” (Penal Law § 15.00[2]). * * *

Regardless of … the strength of the People’s case, the defendant was not required to affirmatively demonstrate his actual innocence in this procedural posture … . It is clear that “an arguable claim of innocence” … may alone provide a basis for granting a presentence motion to withdraw a plea, even where the evidence of innocence is “far from conclusive” … . People v Amos, 2021 NY Slip Op 05577, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTIMIDATING WITNESSES SUCH THAT OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS BY THOSE WITNESSES WERE ADMISSIBLE; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EXERCISE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO JURORS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined (1) the People did not demonstrate the defendant was responsible for the intimidation of witnesses by others; and (2), the People should not have been allowed to exercise peremptory challenges to jurors after those jurors had been accepted by the defense:

“The purpose of a Sirois hearing is to determine whether the defendant has procured a witness’s absence or unavailability through his own misconduct, and thereby forfeited any hearsay or Confrontation Clause objections to admitting the witness’s out-of-court statements” … . The People must “present legally sufficient evidence of circumstances and events from which a court may properly infer that the defendant, or those at defendant’s direction or acting with defendant’s knowing acquiescence, threatened the witness” … . “At a Sirois hearing, the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant has procured the witness’s absence or unavailability” … .

… [T]he People’s evidence did not establish that the defendant controlled the individuals who threatened the witness or that the defendant influenced or persuaded any individual to threaten the witness or his family … . …

The Supreme Court committed reversible error when it permitted the People to exercise peremptory challenges to prospective jurors after the defendant and his codefendant exercised peremptory challenges to that same panel of prospective jurors … . This procedure violated “the one persistently protected and enunciated rule of jury selection—that the People make peremptory challenges first, and that they never be permitted to go back and challenge a juror accepted by the defense” … . People v Burgess, 2021 NY Slip Op 05580, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

,

THE POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON TO APPROACH DEFENDANT AND REQUEST INFORMATION; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted in this street stop case. The police officers’ observations of defendant, pursuant to the DeBour criteria, did not justify approaching him and asking whether a bag on the counter in a store belonged to him. There was a gun in the bag:

At the suppression hearing, one of the officers testified that as his vehicle was approaching a red traffic signal at the intersection, the defendant “tensed up” or “stiffened up” and, after making eye contact with the officer through the front windshield, the defendant’s “eyes widened” and the defendant walked into the corner store. The officer continued to observe the defendant through the store’s window, but did not have a full view of him. The officer saw the defendant do “a little pacing back and forth” and then come back outside. When the traffic signal turned green, the officer and his partner pulled over and exited their vehicle. * * *

… [T]he officer who testified at the suppression hearing failed to articulate any reason for approaching the defendant, other than that he appeared nervous and the officer wanted to “see why he went into the store.” This, standing alone, did not provide an objective, credible reason for the officers to approach the defendant and request information … .

… [E]ven assuming, arguendo, that the arresting officers had an objective, credible reason for approaching the defendant, they had no basis for immediately engaging the defendant in a pointed inquiry regarding the ownership and contents of the bag inside the store … . People v Brown, 2021 NY Slip Op 05579, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

, ,

EVEN A UBIQUITOUS “DE MINIMUS” VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW IS VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR A PRETEXTUAL TRAFFIC STOP; HERE THE LICENSE PLATE FRAME OBSCURED “GARDEN STATE” ON THE NEW JERSEY LICENSE PLATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the pretextual traffic stop was valid and defendant’s suppression motion should not have been granted on that ground. Apparently the license-plate frame obscured New Jersey’s nickname “Garden State” on the plate, which constitutes a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 402(1)(b):

The trial court’s concerns of permitting police officers to engage in pretextual traffic stops based on observations of trivial or technical traffic violations, which may lead to impermissible profiling, are noteworthy and merit consideration. However, once the court found that the officers reasonably believed that a traffic violation had been committed, this provided the required probable cause to stop the car … , regardless of whether the violation could be deemed de minimis, ubiquitous, unintentional, or caused by a third party such as a car dealer … . “Probable cause to believe that the Vehicle and Traffic Law has been violated provides an objectively reasonable basis for the police to stop a vehicle and . . . there is no exception for infractions that are subjectively characterized as ‘de minimis'” … . People v Dula, 2021 NY Slip Op 05465, First Dept 10-12-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS UNENFORCEABLE; “DIFFICULTIES” BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND TWO ATTORNEYS ASSIGNED TO REPRESENT HIM DID NOT AMOUNT TO DEFENDANT’S FORFEITURE OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AS THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD RULED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was not valid and the trial judge had violated defendant’s right to counsel by essentially forcing defendant to represent himself after several attorneys had withdrawn. Of all the attorneys who had withdrawn, only two cited difficulties with the defendant. The cited “difficulties” were defendant’s “raised voice” and “lack of cooperation.” There were no allegations of threats or abusive conduct. The other attorneys had withdrawn citing a conflict of interest, illness and leaving the state:

… [D]efendant’s waiver in the case before us did not contain “clarifying language . . . that appellate review remained available for certain issues” … . Indeed, the written appeal waiver and the colloquy utterly failed to indicate that some rights to appeal would survive the waiver. Moreover, the written waiver implied that defendant was completely waiving his right “to prosecute [an] appeal as a poor person, and to have an attorney assigned” if indigent.

Defendant’s appeal waiver thus mischaracterized the nature of the waiver of appeal by suggesting that the waiver included an absolute bar to the taking of a first-tier direct appeal and the loss of attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief … . * * *

There may be circumstances where a defendant who refuses to cooperate with successive assigned attorneys is ultimately deemed to have forfeited the right to assigned counsel, although such an individual must be afforded the opportunity to retain counsel. … There is record evidence of only two attorneys who asked to be relieved due to difficulties with defendant. … County Court’s own orders relieving Miosek, Taylor, Carlson, and Scott cited conflict of interest, illness, or departure from the state, not attorney-client animosity. Such factors were beyond defendant’s control. People v Shanks, 2021 NY Slip Op 05450, CtApp 10-12-21

 

, , , ,

NYC’S RIGHT OF WAY LAW CRIMINALIZES ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE WHEN A VEHICLE STRIKES A PEDESTRIAN OR A BICYCLIST WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY; THE LAW IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS, PROPERLY IMPOSES ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE AS THE MENS REA, AND IS NOT PREEMPTED BY OTHER LAWS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a concurring opinion, determined New York City’s “Right of Way Law,” which criminalizes ordinary negligence when a vehicle strikes a pedestrian or bicyclist who has the right of way, is constitutional and is not preempted by other laws. Both defendants were convicted under the Right of Way Law (NYC Administrative Code 19-190), a misdemeanor. The defendants unsuccessfully argued (1) the law is void for vagueness; (2) ordinary negligence cannot constitute the mens rea for a criminal act; and (3) the law is preempted by the Penal Law and the Vehicle and Traffic Law:

Article 15 of the Penal Law lists and defines four “culpable mental states”—”intentionally,” “knowingly,” “recklessly,” and “criminal negligence” … . However, strict liability is also contemplated by article 15: “[t]he minimal requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which [such person] is physically capable of performing,” and, “[i]f such conduct is all that is required for commission of a particular offense, . . . such offense is one of ‘strict liability'” … . * * *

The provisions of the Penal Law “govern the construction of and punishment for any offense defined outside” of the Penal Law, “[u]nless otherwise expressly provided, or unless the context otherwise requires” (Penal Law § 5.05 [2]). The two key provisions at issue, Penal Law § 15.00 (Culpability; definitions of terms) and § 15.05 (Culpability; definitions of culpable mental states), expressly provide otherwise by making clear that they are “applicable to this chapter” only. Further contradicting defendants’ interpretation of article 15 is the legislature’s own use of an ordinary negligence mens rea for offenses defined outside the Penal Law. For example … Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 and Agriculture and Markets Law § 370—which were enacted after the relevant provisions in article 15 of the Penal Law—both employ an ordinary negligence standard for imposing criminal liability. People v Torres, 2021 NY Slip Op 05448, CtApp 10-12-21

 

,

THE PAT DOWN SEARCH OF DEFENDANT TRAFFIC OFFENDER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the pat down search of defendant traffic offender was not supported by reasonable suspicion:

… [A] pat down search of a traffic offender is not authorized unless, when the vehicle is stopped, there is reasonable suspicion that the defendant is armed or poses a threat to the officer’s safety … . The requisite reasonable suspicion is simply lacking here; defendant made no evasive moves, he was not aggressive with the officer, he did not reach into his clothing or into dark hiding spots in the car, there were no telltale bulges in his clothes, he made no statements about weapons or other dangerous items, and the officer had no prior knowledge of any defendant-specific concerns … . Contrary to the motion court’s view, “non-compliant and erratic behavior” does not automatically give rise to reasonable suspicion of a threat to officer safety … . Although defendant’s flat affect and partial disrobement during the traffic stop was odd, nothing about his specific odd behavior during the episode gave rise to reasonable suspicion that he was armed or posed a threat to the officer’s safety … . If anything, the officer’s ability to peer unobstructed into defendant’s open pants should have assuaged, rather than heightened, any concerns that defendant was concealing a weapon. The crack cocaine should therefore have been suppressed as the fruit of the unlawful frisk … . People v Santy, 2021 NY Slip Op 05439, Fourth Dept 10-8-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS COERCED BY THE JUDGE’S THREAT TO IMPOSE A HEAVIER SENTENCE IF CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, IT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant was induced to enter the plea by a threat to impose a heavier sentence after trial. The defendant did not preserve the issue for appeal by a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, but the appeal was heard in the interest of justice:

… [D]efendant contends that his plea was rendered involuntary due to statements made by County Court during the plea colloquy indicating that the court would impose the maximum sentence and direct that it run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence if he were convicted at trial. * * *

… [I]t is well settled that a defendant “may not be induced to plead guilty by the threat of a heavier sentence” if he or she decides to proceed to trial … . … [T]he court’s comments about sentencing were not merely a description of the range of the potential sentences; instead, they conveyed to defendant the court’s intent to impose the maximum punishment at sentencing if he proceeded to trial and lost. That constitutes coercion, rendering the plea involuntary … . People v Thigpen-Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 05429, Fourth Dept 10-8-21

 

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