You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

IN A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING BASED UPON AN ACT WHICH WAS NOT COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE VIEW AND PRESENCE OF THE COURT, THE CONTEMPT MOTION MUST BE PERSONALLY SERVED; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY SERVED, DEPRIVING FAMILY COURT OF JURISDICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the criminal contempt motion against father for bringing a recording device into court should have been dismissed because there was no proof father was personally served with the motion:

A finding of criminal contempt, as is pertinent here, must be supported by a showing of “[d]isorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during its sitting, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings, or to impair the respect due to its authority” (Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [1]), and proof of guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt … . “Such a contempt, committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, may be punished summarily; when not so committed, the party charged must be notified of the accusation, and have a reasonable time to make a defense” (Judiciary Law § 751 [1] …). To this end, a “criminal contempt proceeding requires personal service on the contemnor” … . “A court lacks personal jurisdiction over a respondent who is not properly served with process” and, “[w]hen the requirements for service of process have not been met, it is irrelevant that the respondent may have actually received the documents, because notice received by means other than those authorized by statute does not bring a respondent within the jurisdiction of the court” … .

Family Court acknowledged in its written order that it was unable to summarily hold the father in contempt, as the only direct evidence of his possession of a prohibited recording device was discovered outside of the courtroom by court officers who were not immediately available to testify. As such, personal service of the motion charging the father with contempt was required. Nothing in the record reflects that such service was effectuated. We note that, to the extent that the court’s notice of motion indicates that it was mailed to the father to a Pennsylvania address, there is similarly no affidavit of service/mailing and no receipt of mailing in the record. Matter of Ruoyao P. (Zhechen P.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04065, Third Dept 7-3-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the procedural requirements for a motion charging criminal contempt for an act which was not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court. The motion must be personally served in accordance with the CPLR. Failure of proper service deprives the court of jurisdiction.

 

, ,

THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD REDACT FROM THE PRESENTENCE REPORT ANY REFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s presentence report should have been redacted to remove reference to criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted:

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in failing to redact improper statements from the presentence report (PSR) because they reference criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted … . Specifically, we agree with defendant that the inclusion in the PSR of statements regarding alleged sexual offenses by defendant involving another child, of which he was acquitted, “was inappropriate and inflammatory” … . We therefore direct County Court to redact the sentence on page 10 of the PSR referring to a statement by the victim “that there could be another victim . . . who was inappropriately touched by [defendant]”; the quotation on page 10 from an investigator stating that defendant ” ‘was having sexual intercourse with another underage female as well. High risk for children’ “; and the sentence on page 12 referring to a disclosure “that [defendant] has been sexually assaulting [the other victim] since she was nine years old” from all copies of defendant’s PSR.  People v Wilmet, 2025 NY Slip Op 03901, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: A presentence report should not include any references to criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted.​

 

 

, ,

THE POLICE SUSPECTED DEFENDANT HAD SPECIFIC WEAPONS IN A SPECIFIC VEHICLE; AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP, THE POLICE SEARCHED THE CAR AND FOUND A WEAPON; LATER THEY SEARCHED THE CAR AGAIN AND FOUND A SECOND WEAPON; ONLY AFTER THE SEARCHES DID THEY START TO FILL OUT THE INVENTORY SEARCH FORM; THIS WAS NOT A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH; THE WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the weapons seized from defendant’s vehicle after a traffic stop should have been suppressed. The police were looking for specific weapons in a specific car at the time of the search. Therefore the search could not be considered a valid inventory search:

… [T]he record reveals that the purported inventory search was actually a pretext to search for contraband. At the suppression hearing, the testimony and body-worn camera footage established that one of the officers who stopped defendant’s vehicle identified him and testified that defendant had, earlier that day, been identified as someone likely to be in possession of a weapon. Following the traffic stop and while defendant was being detained pursuant to an outstanding arrest warrant, two other officers arrived on the scene. One of the arriving officers identified the vehicle defendant was driving as one that the police thought defendant would be using and would be keeping a weapon in. The other arriving officer promptly began searching the front passenger area of the vehicle; he opened the glove box and found a weapon, prompting a police officer to observe “oh, there it is.” At that point, another officer said “let’s check for the second one,” and shortly thereafter a second weapon was found in the same spot, precisely as predicted by that officer. * * *

Our conclusion is not based merely on the fact that, in conducting the first search, the “officers knew that contraband might be recovered” from the vehicle … . Rather, the evidence at the suppression hearing demonstrated that the officers’ purpose in conducting the first search was to find specific weapons in a specific vehicle possessed by a specific person, i.e., defendant. We also note that the officers did not begin the second search until about ten minutes after the weapons were discovered, and it was only at that time that an officer began filling out an inventory search form. The facts that the inventory search form was not made contemporaneously with the first search, as required by Buffalo Police Department policy, and that it was incomplete to the extent it failed to note, as required, obvious damage to the vehicle, merely underscores and corroborates our conclusion that the first search of the vehicle was pretextual. People v Cunningham, 2025 NY Slip Op 03890, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Here the fact that the police did not start filling out the inventory-search form until after two  searches of the vehicle had turned up weapons demonstrated the attempt to color the warrantless search as an inventory search was a ruse.

 

, , , , ,

THE SORA HEARING JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE, INCREASING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK LEVEL, BASED ON INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) OR RAISED BY THE PEOPLE AT THE HEARING; TO DO SO VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have increased defendant’s SORA risk-level based upon information which was not included in the risk assessment instrument (RAI) or raised by the People at the SORA hearing:

“The due process guarantees in the United States and New York Constitutions require that a defendant be afforded notice of the hearing to determine [their] risk level pursuant to SORA and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the [RAI]” … . It is therefore improper for a court to depart from the presumptive risk level based on a ground for departure that has never been raised (see id.). Here, because defendant’s employment was not presented as a basis for departure in the RAI or by the People at the hearing, defendant was not afforded notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to it … . We therefore reverse the order, vacate defendant’s risk level determination, and remit the matter to County Court for a new risk level determination and, if necessary, a new hearing in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3) and defendant’s due process rights … . People v Lincoln, 2025 NY Slip Op 03930, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: A defendant is entitled to notice of all the evidence which the court will rely for a SORA risk-level assessment such that the defendant has an opportunity to respond.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH A REVIEW OF POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS BY A PANEL OF SENIOR PROSECUTORS IN RESPONSE TO A DEFENDANT’S DISCOVERY DEMAND IS NOT PERMITTED, THE REMEDY FOR SUCH A REVIEW IS NOT GRANTING DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION; RATHER THE MATTER IS REMITTED FOR A REVIEW OF THE RECORDS BY THE TRIAL JUDGE AND A FINDING WHETHER THE PEOPLE EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE; IF NOT, DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, held that the trial judge should review the police disciplinary records, which had been reviewed by a panel of senior prosecutors before they were provided to the defense, to determine if any relevant records were improperly withheld. If the People did not exercise due diligence, the certificate of compliance could be illusory and defendant might be entitled to a speedy-trial dismissal. The court noted that prior caselaw has ruled that the review of police disciplinary records by a panel of senior prosecutors is not permitted:

According to defendant, reversal is required because, as in People v Sumler (228 AD3d 1350, 1354 [4th Dept 2024]) and People v Rojas-Aponte (224 AD3d 1264, 1266 [4th Dept 2024]), the People used a screening panel of senior prosecutors to determine which police disciplinary records were related to the subject matter of the case, i.e., subject to discovery as impeachment material under CPL 245.20 (1) (k), and which police disciplinary matters did not relate to the subject matter of the case and thus not subject to automatic discovery. Although the People’s use of a screening panel in this case is not permitted under our prior case law, we do not agree with defendant that he is necessarily entitled to dismissal under CPL 30.30.

Instead, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for the court to determine whether the People withheld any police disciplinary records that relate to the subject matter of the case. If the court determines that there were disciplinary records subject to disclosure that were not turned over to the defense in a timely manner, then the court must determine whether the People exercised due diligence in locating and disclosing those records … . People v Sanders, 2025 NY Slip Op 03884, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: A review by senior prosecutors to determine whether police disciplinary records should be provided to the defense is not permitted.

Practice Point: Where, as here, that review process was used, the remedy is remitting the matter for a review of the records by the trial judge and a finding whether the People exercised due diligence.

 

HERE THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF THE COUNT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (FOURT DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying the judgment of conviction, noted that the murder second degree counts must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the count of murder in the first degree. People v Dean, 2025 NY Slip Op 03878, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

 

, ,

THE DETECTIVE DID NOT READ THE MIRANDA RIGHTS TO DEFENDANT AND IT IS CLEAR FROM THE VIDEOTAPE THAT DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE READ THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF THOSE RIGHTS BEFORE HE WAIVED THEM; THE PEOPLE, THEREFORE, DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVED THE MIRANDA RIGHTS; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction, suppressing defendant’s statements and ordering a new trial, over a dissent, determined the People did not demonstrate defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent and his right to counsel before speaking with the detective. The detective never explained the Miranda rights verbally. Defendant was given a paper which explained the rights. The videotape of defendant’s interview showed that defendant looked at the paper for no more than five seconds before signing it:

As can be seen from the videotape, neither the detective nor defendant read all of the Miranda rights out loud and, while they did discuss Miranda in general, the focus of the oral interaction was about the waiver of the right to counsel and not the other rights described on the Miranda form. There is no indication that defendant actually read all of the warnings or comprehended them. Indeed, the videotape establishes that defendant looked at the form for less than five seconds before he reached for the pen to sign it. Based on our review of the video, we conclude that it is highly improbable, if not impossible, for defendant to have read to himself all of the Miranda warnings during the five seconds the piece of paper was in front of him before he signed. More to the point, the People failed to meet their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was adequately apprised of his relevant constitutional rights before waiving them.

Although “[t]here is no rule, statutory or otherwise, requiring that Miranda warnings be read to a suspect” … , there is no evidence in this case that defendant was actually “administered” such rights … or that such rights were “verbally outline[d]” to him … . People v Marsh, 2025 NY Slip Op 03874, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: There is no requirement that the police read the Miranda rights to a suspect out loud. But the People have the burden of proving the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived those rights before defendant was interviewed. Here the videotape of the interview demonstrated the detective did not explain the rights verbally. Rather, the detective provided defendant with a paper explaining the rights. The videotape demonstrated defendant looked at the paper for no more than five seconds before signing it. The People therefore failed to prove a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights and suppression was warranted.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE, COMPELLING DEFENDANT TO UNLOCK THE CELL PHONE WITH HIS FINGERPRINT AMOUNTED TO TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE THAT HE OWNED, CONTROLLED AND HAD ACCESS TO THE CONTENTS OF THE PHONE, A VIOLATION OF HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND THE CONTENTS OF THE PHONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ogden, determined compelling defendant to unlock his cell phone with his finger (the cell phone was programmed to recognize defendant’s fingerprint) violated defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The police were acting pursuant to a child-pornography search warrant when defendant was compelled to unlock the phone. The cell phone contained child pornography. Defendant pled guilty. The issue on appeal was whether defendant’s motion to suppress the images on the phone should have been granted:

… [T]he People do not dispute that the opening of the cell phone was compelled and incriminating. We are thus tasked with determining whether defendant’s compelled opening of his cell phone, upon the warrant’s execution, had a testimonial aspect sufficient to trigger Fifth Amendment protection.

… [W]e conclude that defendant’s “act of unlocking the phone represented the thoughts ‘I know how to open the phone,’ ‘I have control over and access to this phone,’ and ‘the print of this specific finger is the password to this phone’ ” … . The biometric data defendant provided “directly announce[d] [defendant’s] access to and control over the phone, as well as his mental knowledge of how to unlock the device” … . The act of production cases also support the conclusion that, upon execution of the warrant, defendant’s compelled unlocking of his phone through biometric data was testimonial. We conclude that “in response to the command to unlock the phone, [defendant] opened it, [and] that act disclosed his control over the phone [and] his knowledge of how to access it” … . At a minimum, the authentication through biometric data implicitly communicated that the contents contained therein were in defendant’s possession or control … .

… [T]he way in which the warrant was executed effectively required defendant to answer “a series of questions about ownership or control over the phone, including how it could be opened and by whom” … .

… “Because the compelled opening of the cellphone [during the execution of the search warrant] was testimonial, both the message and any evidence obtained from that communication must be suppressed” … . People v Manganiello, 2025 NY Slip Op 03873, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: At least where there is a question whether defendant owns and controls a cell phone which contains child pornography, compelling defendant to unlock the phone with his fingerprint is tantamount to defendant’s testimony that defendant owns, controls and has access to the contents of the phone—constituting a violation of a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

 

, ,

WHEN A WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT FROM A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO HIM BY THE POLICE IS DEEMED “CONFIRMATORY,” THAT CONCLUSION IS TANTAMOUNT TO A DETERMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE POLICE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS NOT SUGGESTIVE AND COULD NOT HAVE LED TO THE MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE WITNESS KNEW THE DEFENDANT WELL; HERE THE PROOF THE IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, suppressing identification testimony and ordering a new trial, determined the evidence did not support the conclusion the witness’s identification of the defendant from a photograph shown to him by the police was “confirmatory.” Deeming an identification as confirmatory is tantamount to finding there is no chance the police identification procedure could lead to misidentification because the witness knows the defendant well:

“A court’s invocation of the ‘confirmatory identification’ exception is . . . tantamount to a conclusion that, as a matter of law, the witness is so familiar with the defendant that there is ‘little or no risk’ that police suggestion could lead to a misidentification” … . “In effect, it is a ruling that however suggestive or unfair the identification procedure might be, there is virtually no possibility that the witness could misidentify the defendant” … . “The People bear the burden in any instance they claim that a citizen identification procedure was ‘merely confirmatory’ ” … . “[T]he People must show that the protagonists are known to one another, or where . . . there is no mutual relationship, that the witness knows defendant so well as to be impervious to police suggestion” … . “[W]hether the exception applies depends on the extent of the prior relationship, which is necessarily a question of degree” … . In determining whether the witness is sufficiently familiar with the defendant, a court may consider factors such as “the number of times [the witness] viewed [the] defendant prior to the crime, the duration and nature of the encounters, the setting, the period of time over which the viewings occurred, the time elapsed between the crime and the previous viewings, and whether the two had any conversations” … .

Here … the evidence was insufficient to establish that the witness’s pretrial photo identification of defendant was confirmatory as a matter of law because, “[a]lthough the witness testified that he knew defendant because he had seen him ‘a couple of times’ at the barber shop, and that the two had each other’s phone numbers, [the witness] also testified that he did not know defendant well, that he knew him only by a common nickname, and that they never spoke again after the assault” … . … [T]he witness testified at trial that he had seen defendant a couple times at the barber shop … , and the evidence at the hearing similarly established that the witness had either interacted with defendant twice or approximately four or five times including a couple of times at the barber shop. … [T]he witness testified … that he knew defendant “not much but a little bit,” that he knew defendant only by his nickname and not his given name, and that he never heard from defendant again after the assault … . People v Alcaraz-Ubiles, 2025 NY Slip Op 03929, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the quantum of evidence necessary to prove a witness’s identification of the defendant from a photograph shown to him by the police was “confirmatory” because the defendant was well known to the witness.

 

, ,

EVEN WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENTIONALLY AIDED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE UNDERLYING FELONY, THE TRIAL JUDGE MUST INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE FELONY-MURDER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ACTS CAUSING THE VICTIM’S DEATH AND THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the murder second degree conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should have given the jury instruction for the affirmative defense to felony murder. When defendant’s back was turned, a co-defendant shot and killed a man standing at the passenger door of a vehicle. Defendant then knocked to the ground a woman standing at the driver’s side of the vehicle and stole her purse. Defendant was not armed and stated to the police he did not know the co-defendant intended to commit a crime:

It is an affirmative defense to felony murder that the defendant “(a) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof; and (b) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article or substance [*2]readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons; and (c) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article or substance; and (d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury” (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). * * *

Even where, as here, the evidence shows that a defendant “intentionally aided [the primary assailant] in the commission of” the underlying felony, a trial court errs in refusing to charge the affirmative defense to felony murder where there is evidence that the defendant “did not participate in the acts causing the victim’s death” … . Here, the trial evidence was “reasonably supportive of the view” that defendant satisfied the four elements of the affirmative defense and, “regardless of evidence to the contrary, the court [was] without discretion to deny the charge, and error in this regard requires reversal and a new trial” … . People v Rosa, 2025 NY Slip Op 03907, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Where there is evidence to support the elements of the affirmative defense to felony murder, the judge has no discretion and must instruct the jury on the defense, even where there is evidence to the contrary.

 

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