You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY BUT DID NOT NOTIFY THE ATTORNEY OF THE LINEUP; THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the detective who conducted a line-up identification with the defendant was aware defendant was represented by an attorney, but did not notify the attorney of the line-up. The identification evidence should have been suppressed:

As a general rule, a defendant does not have the right to counsel at a preaccusatory, investigatory lineup … . However, there are two exceptions. The first is when a defendant is actually represented by an attorney in the matter under investigation and the police know, or can be charged with knowledge of, that representation … . The second is when a defendant who is already in custody and represented by an attorney in an unrelated case invokes the right by requesting his or her attorney … . In either case, “[o]nce the right to counsel has been triggered, the police may not proceed with the lineup without at least apprising the defendant’s lawyer of the situation and affording the lawyer a reasonable opportunity to appear. A specific request that the lineup not proceed until counsel is so notified need not be made” … .

Here, prior to the lineup, the attorney representing the defendant on another matter spoke to the arresting officer and identified herself as the defendant’s attorney. The detective who conducted the lineup testified at the suppression hearing that he was aware prior to conducting the lineup that the defendant was represented by an attorney. Moreover, the only reasonable inference from the detective’s testimony was that he was aware that the defendant was represented by the attorney with respect to the robbery case under investigation. People v Marion, 2021 NY Slip Op 02177, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

,

DEFENDANT ALLEGED A PROSECUTOR WHO PARTICIPATED IN HIS PROSECUTION HAD REPRESENTED AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE SAME CRIME; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction. The defendant alleged a prosecutor, Vecchione, participated in his prosecution after having represented a codefendant, Bobb, in the same matter:

A prosecutor’s “paramount obligation is to the public” … , and “a defendant, as an integral member of the body politic, is entitled to a full measure of fairness” from that public officer … . Here, the defendant asserts, among other things, that Vecchione was in a position to use privileged information learned through prior representation of the defendant’s accomplice in the crime charged, thus giving the People an unfair advantage in the defendant’s case … . Generally, a public prosecutor should not be removed from prosecuting a case “unless necessary to protect a defendant from ‘actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence'” … . “[T]he appearance of impropriety, standing alone, might not be grounds for disqualification” … .

Under the particular circumstances of this case, in which evidence was presented suggesting that Vecchione was directly involved in the defendant’s prosecution after having represented his accomplice in the charged crime … , questions of fact existed as to whether the defendant suffered “actual prejudice or a substantial risk of an abused confidence” so as to warrant vacatur of his conviction … . People v Breedan, 2021 NY Slip Op 02173, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

,

ARGUING FOR LENIENCY IN SENTENCING DOES NOT PRESERVE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SENTENCING WAS VINDICTIVE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined the argument that the sentence to imprisonment was vindictive was not preserved. Defendant had successfully appealed his conviction after a nonjury verdict and then pled guilty to a different offense before a different judge. Although defendant argued for leniency, that did not preserve the “vindictive sentencing” argument:

The claim that the sentence imposed upon defendant’s guilty plea was presumptively vindictive and imposed without State Due Process protections … is unpreserved. Defendant’s arguments against imposition of the term of imprisonment, registered before the court imposed sentence, were consistent with arguments for leniency and made no specific reference to the principle of vindictiveness or any potential constitutional violation. Defendant also failed to either object to the sentence actually imposed or move to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor does this record support a claim that the sentence, which was within the ambit of the range of sentences for a class A misdemeanor, was illegal in a respect that “can readily be discerned from the . . . record” … . As a result, defendant’s arguments are unreviewable. People v Olds, 2021 NY Slip Op 02019, CtApp 4-1-21

 

THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT REPROSECUTION BY A SIMPLIFIED TRAFFIC INFORMATION AFTER THE ORIGINAL IS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SUPPORTING DEPOSITION; THE CONTRARY RULE IN THE APPELLATE TERM FOR THE NINTH AND TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the Appellate Term’s prohibiting the filing of a new simplified traffic information after the original was dismissed for failure to provide a supporting deposition was not supported by the Criminal Procedure Law and conflicted with a prior Court of Appeals decision:

The Appellate Term for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts has adopted a rule of criminal procedure under which, absent special circumstances, the People cannot reprosecute a defendant by filing a new simplified traffic information after the original simplified traffic information was dismissed for facial insufficiency under CPL 100.40 (2) for failure to provide a requested supporting deposition in a timely manner. Because that rule has no basis in the Criminal Procedure Law and contravenes our holding in People v Nuccio (78 NY2d 102 [1991]), we reverse. * * *

… [A]lthough the Criminal Procedure Law requires a prosecutor to seek permission from the court to resubmit evidence and charges to a grand jury after dismissal of a defective or legally insufficient indictment, there is no similar statutory requirement for filing a new accusatory instrument after dismissal of a facially insufficient simplified information. In Nuccio, we concluded that “the different treatment accorded indictments and informations in the statute manifests the Legislature’s intention to permit reprosecution for nonfelony charges when the information is dismissed for legal insufficiency” (Nuccio, 78 NY2d at 105). …

The Criminal Procedure Law does not prohibit reprosecution upon a facially sufficient accusatory instrument after such a dismissal, whether by information or by simplified traffic information with a supporting deposition. Accordingly, the People were entitled to reprosecute the traffic violation after dismissal of the first simplified traffic information. People v Epakchi, 2021 NY Slip Op 02018, CtApp 4-1-21

 

,

SENTENCES FOR THE SALE OF TWO DRUGS IN THE SAME TRANSACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the sentences for two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance should run concurrently because they were committed during a single transaction:

… [T]he People failed to prove that defendant committed two separate and distinct acts. Counts 1 and 2 were for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree — one for each drug; thus, the actus reus elements are the same … . The record reveals that the CI made arrangements for one sale to take place and defendant engaged in a single transaction — one sale of two controlled substances. The sale occurred in defendant’s vehicle where there was an exchange of money for one bag of drugs, containing two smaller bags of drugs. As the offenses were committed through one single distinct act, the sentences imposed on counts 1 and 2 should run concurrently … . People v Muniz, 2021 NY Slip Op 02023, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

, ,

WARREN COUNTY DID NOT HAVE “PARTICULAR EFFECT” JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL OFFENSES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN SARATOGA COUNTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Article 78 prohibition petition was the appropriate vehicle for raising the issue whether Warren County had jurisdiction over offenses alleged to have been committed in Saratoga County. The Third Department held the charges could not be brought in Warren County under the so-called “particular effect” rationale (i.e., the argument that the offenses had a “particular effect” on Warren County). The petitioner, who resided in Warren County, was charged with grand larceny and other offenses alleged to have been committed when petitioner was treasurer of Lake George EMS involving bank accounts in Saratoga County:

Respondent failed to demonstrate that the evidence before the grand jury established that Warren County has particular effect jurisdiction over the instant crimes. Respondent submitted his paraphrased testimony of one witness, whose familiarity with Lake George EMS and/or source of information was not disclosed. According to respondent, the witness testified that petitioner stole money from Lake George EMS at a time when he knew the organization was having difficulty meeting payroll. Based on this testimony, respondent argued that petitioner’s conduct “was likely to create a situation where emergency medical services would be restricted or discontinued by the Lake George [EMS] thus having a materially harmful impact upon the community welfare.” In our view, such testimony fails to demonstrate a concrete and identifiable injury to the Warren County community. Matter of Gentner v Hall, 2021 NY Slip Op 02028, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge did not conduct an adequate inquiry before allowing defendant to represent himself:

A court must determine that the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel is made competently, intelligently, and voluntarily before allowing that defendant to represent himself or herself … . In order to make that evaluation, the court “must undertake a ‘searching inquiry’ designed to ‘insur[e] that a defendant [is] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel'” … . The court’s inquiry “must 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 record should also disclose ‘that a trial court has delved into a defendant’s age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures and other relevant factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, voluntary waiver’ of the right to counsel” … . Here, although the court obtained certain pedigree information from the defendant, it failed to ascertain that the defendant was aware of the risks inherent in proceeding without an attorney and the benefits of having counsel represent him at trial … . Moreover, the court failed to discuss the potential sentence that could be imposed … . Thus, the court’s inquiry was insufficient to ensure that the defendant understood the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. People v Lemmo, 2021 NY Slip Op 01997, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

,

BASED UPON THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THE IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE STATUTORY-RAPE COMPLAINANT TO DETERMINE THE RELEVANCE OF HER PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY (A MATERIAL STAGE OF THIS PROCEEDING); DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT FOR WHICH NO 710.30 NOTICE WAS PROVIDED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF INTENT, MOTIVE, OR LACK OF MISTAKE WAS NOT RELEVANT TO STATUTORY RAPE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined: (1) based upon his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, the defendant should have been present during the judge’s in camera interview with the complainant in this statutory rape case to determine the relevance of her psychiatric history (a material stage of this proceeding); (2) the defendant’s statement for which no CPL 710.30 notice was provided should not have been admitted on that ground; and (3) that same statement should not have been admitted as “Molineux” evidence of intent, motive or lack of mistake because such evidence is not relevant to statutory rape:

The right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him or her through cross-examination is a fundamental right of constitutional dimension … . The right of cross-examination is an essential safeguard of fact-finding accuracy and “the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested” … .

Where a primary prosecution witness is shown to suffer from a psychiatric condition, the defense is entitled to show that the witness’s capacity to perceive and recall events was impaired by that condition … .

In this case, the defendant’s absence during the Supreme Court’s in camera interview with the complainant to determine if her psychiatric history was relevant had a substantial effect on his ability to defend the charges against him, and thus, the interview constituted a material stage of the trial for which the defendant should have been present … . Where, as here, the “defendant was absent during a material part of his trial, harmless error analysis is not appropriate,” and a new trial is required … . Moreover, while the scope of cross-examination generally rests within the trial court’s discretion … , here, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in striking the complainant’s testimony adduced during cross-examination with respect to her psychiatric history. People v King, 2021 NY Slip Op 01996, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

,

THE JURY NOTE INDICATED THE REQUEST WAS FOR THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PHONE CALL, BUT THE JUDGE DESCRIBED THE NOTE AS A REQUEST FOR THE PHONE CALL AND PROVIDED THE JURY WITH THE RECORDING OF THE CALL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that the judge did not inform counsel of the full nature of a note from the jury. The jury note indicated the request was for the transcript of a phone call, but the judge said the note was asking for the phone call:

At trial, a recording of one of the defendant’s jail phone calls was introduced into evidence and played for the jury. In addition, the jury was provided with a purported transcript of the call, which was described merely as an aid and was not itself in evidence, and which the Supreme Court instructed should not control in the event of any discrepancy between the recording and the transcript. During deliberations, the jury sent the court a note, marked as court exhibit number 4, which the court stated on the record as “asking for [the defendant’s] phone call from jail.” This description, however, omitted the word “transcript,” which was included at the end of the note in parentheses. The court then stated to the jury that it would play the call again, but would not provide a copy of the transcript.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the jury’s request did not only implicate the court’s ministerial function, as the request can be interpreted as seeking the transcript of the phone call, rather than the call itself. Notably, there was a discrepancy between the transcript and the phone call, and to the extent that the jury’s request implied that the transcript left an impression on the jury, despite the court’s instructions … ,counsel for the defendant should have been made aware of the verbatim contents of the request … . Failure to disclose the precise contents of the note deprived the defense of the opportunity to “analyze the jury’s deliberations” given the note’s ambiguous meaning, “and frame intelligent suggestions for the court’s response” … . People v Dennis, 2021 NY Slip Op 01994, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT PROCURED THE ABSENCE OF A WITNESS; THEREFORE THE WITNESS’S STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO MAKE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AFTER THE DEFENSE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined a witness’s out-of-count statement should not have been admitted because the People did not demonstrate defendant procured the witness’s absence and the failure to follow proper procedure in jury selection was reversible error:

“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” … .

Here, the People failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was responsible for procuring a certain witness’s refusal to testify at trial … . Specifically, the 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 (see CPL 270.15[2] … . 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 01993, Second Dept 3-31-21

The same peremptory challenge issue required reversal in People v Taylor, 2021 NY Slip Op 01998, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

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