You are here: / Criminal Law

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the superior court information (SCI) was jurisdictionally defective because it did not include an offense charged in the felony complaint or a lesser included offense:

… [D]efendant pleaded guilty, as charged in the SCI, to attempted robbery in the second degree under Penal Law §§ 110.00 and 160.10 (1), a different crime from robbery in the first degree (see Penal Law § 160.15 [2]), which was charged in the felony complaint. To be guilty of the offense charged in the SCI, defendant must have attempted to “forcibly steal[] property” and done so “when . . . aided by another person actually present” (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). However, the crime of robbery in the first degree in the felony complaint charged defendant with “forcibly steal[ing] property” while “he or another participant in the crime . . . [i]s armed with a deadly weapon” (Penal Law § 160.15 [2]). “As charged here, [attempted] robbery in the second degree requires an element not required by robbery in the first degree — namely, that defendant be ‘aided by another person actually present'” … . Thus, inasmuch as it is possible to commit the crime charged in the felony complaint — robbery in the first degree — without committing the crime charged in the SCI — attempted robbery in the second degree — the crime charged in the SCI is not a lesser included offense of the former … .

Given that the SCI here did not contain either an offense charged in the underlying felony complaint or a lesser included offense thereof, the SCI upon which defendant’s plea was based was jurisdictionally defective … . People v McCall, 2021 NY Slip Op 03083, Third Dept 5-13-21

 

,

CRITERIA FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department explained the criteria for an application for risk-level reclassification under SORA:

Turning to the August 2019 order denying defendant’s application for reclassification, it was his burden “to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the requested modification [was] warranted, and the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion” … . County Court correctly rejected defendant’s efforts to relitigate various issues addressed in the 2018 order, as an application for reclassification is not “a vehicle for reviewing whether [a] defendant’s circumstances were properly analyzed in the first instance to arrive at his [or her] risk level” … . The sole new development pointed to by defendant was his evaluation by a psychiatrist after the issuance of the 2018 order, and he provided a letter in which the psychiatrist made preliminary findings that defendant neither met the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia nor merited a risk level three classification. The psychiatrist’s final report was not submitted for review, however, and the limited findings offered in the letter were rendered without a review of the raw data underlying the 2015 report and were based upon an account of defendant’s sexual history and offenses that “markedly differ[ed]” from the one referenced in it. The Board accordingly opposed a modification on the ground that defendant had not met his burden of proof and, under the circumstances presented, County Court did not abuse its discretion in agreeing with that assessment … . People v Stein, 2021 NY Slip Op 03086, Third Dept 5-13-21

 

,

THE POLICE ACTED ILLEGALLY IN DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT’S SUBSEQUENT INDEPENDENT ACT OF RUNNING OVER THE POLICE OFFICER DISSIPATED THE ILLEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS CERTAIN TESTIMONY ABOUT THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE POLICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress testimony about an encounter with police was properly denied. Although the police acted illegally in directing defendant to get out of his car and in trying to physically remove defendant from his car, the subsequent criminal act by the defendant, running over the police officer, dissipated the taint of the illegal police conduct:

“Where, like here, a vehicle is lawfully parked on the street and neither it nor its occupant is under any restraint, and the police have no grounds to suspect the occupant of criminality at that point, requesting the occupant to step out of the vehicle creates a new, unauthorized restraint” … . …

“Under the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule, ‘[t]he question to be resolved when it is claimed that evidence subsequently obtained is ‘tainted’ or is ‘fruit’ of a prior illegality is whether the challenged evidence was [obtained] ‘by exploitation of [the initial] illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint'” … . When determining whether an action taken by a defendant following an impermissible seizure dissipated the taint of the illegality, “[t]he test to be applied is whether defendant’s action . . . was spontaneous and precipitated by the illegality or whether it was a calculated act not provoked by the unlawful police activity and thus attenuated from it” … .

Here, the defendant’s action in running over Officer Manzella’s legs and ankles with the vehicle constituted a calculated, independent criminal act, which broke the chain of events and dissipated the taint of the initial unlawful police conduct … . People v Contreras, 2021 NY Slip Op 03048, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT INCLUDED OFFENSES FOR WHICH DEFENDANT WAS NOT HELD FOR GRAND JURY ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the superior court information (SCI) was jurisdictionally defective because it included offenses for which defendant was not held for grand jury action:

The initial felony complaint charged defendant with two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree, and one count each of assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree. Defendant subsequently agreed to waive prosecution by indictment and plead guilty to one count of aggravated criminal contempt, an offense greater than that charged in the original felony complaint. Because the only offense contained in the superior court information was not an offense for which defendant was held for grand jury action, or a lesser included offense, the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective … .

The fact that the felony complaint was amended to include a charge for aggravated criminal contempt does not require a different result. The superior court information is still defective because it included higher offenses for which defendant was not held for grand jury action (see CPL 195.20). People v Angel, 2021 NY Slip Op 03001, First Dept 5-11-21

 

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE IS AN ARMED FELONY FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES IF THE FIREARM IS LOADED AND OPERABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Centra, diverging from the First Department, determined criminal possession of a weapon second degree can constitute possession of a deadly weapon within the definition of an armed felony if the firearm is loaded and operable:

We disagree with the reasoning in Ochoa [182 AD3d 410, 1st Dept 2020] only to the extent that it held that all convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree for possessing a loaded firearm are not armed felonies. It is apparent that where a defendant possesses a firearm that is actually loaded with ammunition and is capable of being fired, he or she possesses a deadly weapon and is guilty of an armed felony offense. We conclude that it is appropriate to look at the particular facts of each case to determine whether the defendant is guilty of an armed felony. For example, a person is guilty of robbery in the first degree under Penal Law § 160.15 (2) when he or she commits a robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, which, as noted, includes a switchblade knife or a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, may be discharged (§ 10.00 [12]). To determine if the defendant committed an armed felony, courts look to the definition of deadly weapon as that phrase is used in the definition of armed felony, which excludes knives. Thus, where a defendant is convicted of robbery in the first degree for the use of a knife, that is not an “armed felony” … . Where, however, the robbery is committed with a loaded, operable firearm, it is an “armed felony” (see People v Jiminez, 165 AD2d 692, 692-693 [1st Dept 1990] … ). In Jiminez, the Court held that “[s]ince defendant pleaded guilty to committing first degree robbery while armed with a pistol he was properly sentenced as an armed felony offender” … , despite the fact that a first-degree robbery conviction is not always an armed felony. Just as courts look to the definition of deadly weapon as that phrase is used in the definition of armed felony to determine that knives are excluded therefrom, so too should courts look to whether the firearm fits within that definition, i.e., a firearm that is actually loaded and capable of being fired. People v Meridy, 2021 NY Slip Op 02894, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

, ,

THE PROSECUTOR VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW BY REFUSING TO INFORM THE GRAND JURY THE DEFENDANT REQUESTED THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES; HOWEVER THE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF TWO COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT; COUNTY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, in a People’s appeal, determined the district attorney violated the Criminal Procedure Law by refusing to tell the grand jury defendant had requested that two witnesses give testimony, but the violation did not warrant dismissal of two counts of the indictment. The decision includes a detailed discussion of the district attorneys duties and discretion with respect to a defendant’s request for witness testimony before a grand jury:

… [A] prosecutor may not “suppress[ a] defendant’s request to call . . . witness[es] nor strip[ ] the grand jury of its discretion to grant or deny that request” … . Instead, “[a]lthough [a] prosecutor [cannot] avoid presenting [a requested] witness’s name for a vote, the prosecutor [is] free, in the role of advisor to the grand jury, to explain that the witness [does] not have relevant information [or] primarily offer[s] inadmissible hearsay testimony, and if unpersuasive in this effort, the prosecutor [may seek] a court order quashing the subpoena or limiting the witness’s testimony as provided in CPL 190.50 (3)” … . … [T]he court properly determined that the People, despite their stated concerns about the admissibility of the proposed testimony, violated their statutory obligation by refusing to present to the grand jury defendant’s request that two of the vehicle’s other occupants be called as witnesses. * * *

We … conclude that “this was not one of the rare cases of prosecutorial misconduct entitling a defendant to the exceptional remedy of dismissal, because there is no showing that, in the absence of the complained-of misconduct, the grand jury might have decided not to indict the defendant” … . … [T]he People did not engage in an overall pattern of willful and pervasive misconduct; instead, the failure to present defendant’s request for witnesses to the grand jury constituted an isolated instance of misconduct involving, at worst, the erroneous handling of an evidentiary matter, which “do[es] not merit invalidation of the indictment” … . People v Wilcox, 2021 NY Slip Op 02893, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

,

THE EVIDENCE OF ESCAPE IN THE FIRST DEGREE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT WAS NOT YET IN CUSTODY WHEN HE DROVE AWAY AS A POLICE OFFICER ATTEMPTED TO PULL HIM FROM HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of escape in the first degree, determined defendant was not yet in custody when he drove away as a police officer attempted to pull him from his car:

… [D]efendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of escape in the first degree. We agree. Here, a police officer informed defendant that he was under arrest and attempted to pull him from the driver’s seat of a vehicle, at which time defendant drove off, dragging officers across a parking lot. Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant was not in custody at the time of the alleged escape … . People v Bagley, 2021 NY Slip Op 02964, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

, , ,

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROBATION OFFICER’S SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE WAS UNLAWFUL AND UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON AN UNCORROBORATED ANONYMOUS TIP WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE DISSENT DISAGREED; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the issue whether the probation officer’s search of defendant’s residence was improperly based solely on an anonymous tip was not preserved for appeal. In addition, the defendant did not demonstrate defense counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the issue. The dissent argued the record did not support the motion court’s finding the warrantless search was lawful and reasonable:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, he did not preserve that issue for our review through either that part of his omnibus motion seeking to suppress the evidence or his posthearing memorandum. A question of law with respect to a ruling of a suppression court is preserved for appeal when “a protest thereto was registered, by the party claiming error, at the time of such ruling . . . or at any subsequent time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same . . . , or if in response to a protest by a party, the court expressly decided the question raised on appeal” (CPL 470.05 [2] …). In his omnibus motion, defendant sought, inter alia, suppression of the evidence seized during the search on the ground that the evidence “was taken in violation of . . . defendant’s constitutional rights” inasmuch as it was done without “a search warrant or probable cause.” Those “broad challenges” are insufficient to preserve defendant’s present contention … . In defendant’s posthearing memorandum, he argued that the search was invalid because there was no warrant or consent to search, that the search was not rationally related to the duties of the officer, and that the parole officers were acting as police officers when conducting the search. He did not raise his present contention that the People were required to prove that the information provided to the officer satisfied the Aguilar-Spinelli test in order for the search to be lawful, even though he was then aware of the basis for the search … . Nor did the court expressly decide that issue … . People v Murray, 2021 NY Slip Op 02896, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

,

THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT PARTICIPATED IN THE MUGGING, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE VICTIM SUFFERED PHYSICAL INJURY, AND INSUFFICENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE VICTIM’S WALLET AND CELL PHONE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence and were against the weight of the evidence. The victim said he was mugged by three men and his wallet and cell phone were stolen. The police were able to track the cell phone and, based on the tracking device, stopped a car 30 to 40 minutes after the mugging. There were four men, including defendant, in the car. The other three men in the car pled guilty. The wallet and cell phone were found in the car. The evidence that defendant participated in the mugging was insufficient, the evidence the victim suffered physical injury was insufficient, and the evidence defendant constructively possessed the wallet and cell phone was insufficient:

… [W]e find that the People failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant’s identity as one of the perpetrators of the robbery and assault.  * * *

Given the paucity of proof regarding the victim’s injuries, we agree with defendant that the evidence fails to establish that the victim suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) … . * * *

… [T]he … circumstantial evidence falls short of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant constructively possessed the wallet and the credit and debit cards contained therein or that any such possession was knowing. Although the testimony demonstrated that the wallet was found somewhere in the back seat, there was no other evidence connecting defendant to the stolen property or demonstrating his awareness of its presence inside the vehicle. … [T]he victim asserted that there were three black males involved in the robbery and assault and there were four black males in the vehicle when it was stopped some 30 to 40 minutes afterward, leaving open the possibility that one of the passengers entered the vehicle after the robbery and assault … . People v Green, 2021 NY Slip Op 02841, Third Dept 5-6-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT-SEX-OFFENDER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THE CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING, HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES WHO WERE VICTIMS OF HIS SEX OFFENSES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, reversing Supreme Court, determined the respondent-sex-offender in this civil commitment proceeding, who was properly allowed to represent himself with a Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) attorney as stand-by counsel, should not be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who had been victims of the respondent’s offenses. The cross-examination should be done by stand-by counsel:

… [A]llowing respondent to personally conduct the cross-examinations of the victim witnesses could thwart or impair petitioner’s ability to sustain its burden of proof by causing the witnesses to back out of testifying or by causing a “chilling effect” on their testimony. Moreover, petitioner has a compelling interest in protecting the victim witnesses from any possible retraumatization resulting from respondent personally conducting cross-examinations of them.

Upon balancing the foregoing Mathews factors, we find that, to the extent that respondent has a due process right to self-representation, such right does not entitle him to personally conduct the cross-examinations of the victim witnesses whom he was adjudicated or alleged to have victimized. Thus, notwithstanding respondent’s pro se status, the cross-examinations of the victim witnesses must be conducted by respondent’s standby counsel (MHLS) or, should respondent prefer, other court-appointed counsel. Matter of State of N.Y. v John T., 2021 NY Slip Op 02862, Third Dept 5-6-21

 

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