You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE BRADY MATERIAL, A WITNESS STATEMENT REVEALED AFTER TRIAL, WOULD NOT HAVE ALTERED THE RESULT OF THE TRIAL; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the Brady material, a witness statement, revealed after trial would not have altered the result of the trial and therefore reversal of the conviction was not warranted:

“To make out a successful Brady claim, ‘a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material'” … . Where, as here, the defendant made a specific request for the evidence in question, “[w]e must examine the trial record, evaluat[e] the withheld evidence in the context of the entire record, and determine in light of that examination whether there is a reasonable possibility that the result of the trial would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed” … . …

The undisclosed witness’s description of the shooter and his flight path did not differ in any material respect from that of the eyewitness who identified defendant in court as the perpetrator. Moreover, the jury’s verdict was supported by considerable other evidence, including the testimony of a cooperating witness who planned the crime with defendant, provided a weapon and cellphone for defendant’s use, observed defendant approach and leave the site of the shooting at the time it occurred, and described the manner in which the weapon was destroyed after the shooting; testimony by the spouse of the cooperating witness confirming defendant’s involvement; the testimony of additional witnesses who described the perpetrator’s clothing and his movements following the shooting; telephone records; and surveillance videos showing defendant’s proximity, clothing, and behavior immediately after the crime. People v McGhee, 2021 NY Slip Op 01836, CtApp 3-25-21

 

THE FEDERAL CONSPIRACY-TO-DEAL-IN-FIREARMS STATUTE HAS DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAN ITS NEW YORK EQUIVALENT AND THEREFORE CAN NOT BE THE BASIS OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department vacated defendant’s second felony offender adjudication because the predicate federal felony did not have the same elements as the New York equivalent:

… [T]he defendant’s federal conviction of conspiracy to deal in firearms under section 371 of title 18 of the United States Code is not a “predicate felony conviction” .. , because the federal conspiracy statute contains different elements than its equivalent in New York such that it is possible to violate the federal statute without engaging in conduct that is a felony in New York … . People v Mohabir, 2021 NY Slip Op 01789, Second Dept 3-24-21

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE USED DEFENDANT’S PRETRIAL SILENCE AGAINST HIM IN THEIR DIRECT CASE; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the People “improperly used [defendant’s] pretrial silence against him in their direct case.” The decision does not explain the facts. Although the error was not preserved, the appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

“[I]t is a well-established principle of state evidentiary law that evidence of a defendant’s pretrial silence is generally inadmissible” … . Here, as the defendant correctly contends, the People improperly used his pretrial silence against him on their direct case … . Since this evidence was used by the People on their direct case, their reliance upon cases in which “conspicuous omissions from the defendants’ statements to police” had properly been used during cross-examination of the defendants to impeach the credibility of their exculpatory trial testimony is misplaced … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the error in admitting evidence of the defendant’s pretrial silence during their direct case was not harmless … . Although this issue is unpreserved for appellate review … , we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, and on that basis, reverse the judgment and remit the matter … for a new trial. People v DeLaCruz, 2021 NY Slip Op 01785, Second Dept 3-24-21

 

SENTENCE DEEMED UNDULY HARSH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s sentence was unduly harsh and directed that all but one of the sentences run concurrently:

For the kidnapping and murder counts, defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of incarceration of 25 years to life. For the burglary and robbery counts, related to the crimes committed at the victim’s residence, defendant received determinate terms of incarceration of 15 years. Although those sentences run concurrently with each other, they were directed to run consecutively to the kidnapping and murder sentences. In addition, defendant received an indeterminate term of incarceration of 1⅓ to 4 years for the count of tampering with physical evidence, which was to run consecutively to all other counts.

It is well settled that this Court’s “sentence-review power may be exercised, if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentencing court” … and that “we may ‘substitute our own discretion for that of a trial court which has not abused its discretion in the imposition of a sentence’ ” … . Here, the record establishes that defendant, who was 22 years old and gainfully employed at the time of the crimes, had no prior criminal history. In addition, although she was an accessory to the crimes committed at the victim’s residence, the evidence establishes that she was one block away during that incident and did not physically participate in those crimes. There is also evidence suggesting that defendant was the victim of repeated acts of domestic abuse perpetrated by one of the codefendants.

Under the circumstances, we conclude that the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and severe. We therefore modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by directing that all sentences except the sentence imposed on the count of tampering with physical evidence run concurrently with each other … . People v Colon, 2021 NY Slip Op 01652, Fourth Dept 3-18-21

 

SENTENCE DEEMED UNDULY HARSH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reduced defendant’s sentence, finding it unduly harsh. The defendant was several hours late in surrendering to the jail and the sentence initially promised was increased. The Fourth Department imposed the lesser sentence initially promised:

… [T]his Court “has broad, plenary power to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances, even though the sentence may be within the permissible statutory range,” and we may exercise that power, “if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentencing court” … . Here, the court initially promised to sentence defendant to a concurrent eight-year determinate term of imprisonment on each count of the indictment and agreed to release him until 9:00 a.m. on the ensuing Monday to allow him to attend his mother’s wedding on the intervening weekend. Defendant accepted the plea offer and was released as promised but did not surrender himself to the jail until 5:30 p.m. on the appointed date. Nevertheless, the record establishes that he surrendered voluntarily and that he called the jail prior to the appointed time and reported that he was having transportation difficulties. In addition, the record establishes that defendant has a lengthy record, but no violent felonies, and that he had not been arrested in the 10 years preceding these incidents, which involve sale and possession of small amounts of cocaine. Under these circumstances, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, we modify the judgment by reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed under each count of the indictment to a determinate term of eight years, to be followed by the three years of postrelease supervision imposed by the court, and directing that the sentences run concurrently with each other. People v Brinson, 2021 NY Slip Op 01648, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION PAPERS RAISED A FACTUAL ISSUE REQUIRING A HEARING, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, determined defendant had raised a factual issue requiring a suppression hearing:

“When made before trial, suppression motions must be in writing, state the legal ground of the motion and contain sworn allegations of fact made by defendant or another person” … . A hearing may be denied “unless the papers submitted raise a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue” … .

Here, defendant specifically alleged that officers “responded to [the scene] after . . . defendant, or someone at his behest, called 911” and that defendant, upon their arrival, told them that he “found [the victim] on the stairs bleeding and was trying to help him.” Defendant alleged that, based on that information, “[t]he police removed [him] from the scene and placed him in the back of a police vehicle, and took his personal cell phone from him” without reasonable suspicion or probable cause justifying the intrusion. Although the People contended that defendant made other statements to the officers that heightened their level of suspicion and justified the intrusion, defendant’s motion papers disputed this assertion, alleging instead that, at the time of the intrusion, “the police knew nothing more than [that the victim] appeared to have been shot, and [that defendant] . . . had discovered him and summoned help while trying to give assistance at the scene.” Indeed, at oral argument on the motion, defendant further explained that he specifically disputed what information the police had at the time of the intrusion. We conclude that, under these circumstances, defendant sufficiently raised a factual issue necessitating a hearing … . People v White, 2021 NY Slip Op 01639, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

THE THREE-STEP BATSON PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED WHEN THE DEFENDANT OBJECTED TO THE PEOPLE’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JUROR, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO SATISFY BATSON (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, determined the three-step Batson procedure was not followed when the defense objected to the People’s peremptory challenge to an African-American prospective juror:

After defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination in step one, the prosecutor offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge … , namely, that the prospective juror had a sister who was incarcerated for assaulting someone with a gun and that the prospective juror said that the criminal justice system could have treated her sister better. When defense counsel attempted to respond, the court interrupted him and stated, “I ruled. There is no Batson issue.” Defense counsel timely objected to the court’s ruling. In our view, defense counsel should have been “given the opportunity to argue that the prosecutor’s explanation[ was] a pretext for discrimination” … . * * *

… [W]hen it interrupted defense counsel, “the court improperly rushed and compressed the Batson inquiry,” precluding defendant from meeting “his burden of establishing an equal protection violation” … . To be distinguished are situations in which defense counsel does not make “any attempt to respond or protest[ ]” …  or in which the court implicitly rejects the pretext argument by letting the challenge stand after hearing a defense counsel’s arguments concerning pretext … . People v Singleton, 2021 NY Slip Op 01638, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

, ,

STATEMENTS MADE AFTER DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, BUT THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS A CONTINUING CRIME AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED AS A SINGLE COUNT, NOT FOUR COUNTS; AN OBJECTION OR A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE AN ERROR AFTER A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN GIVEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined statements made after defendant unequivocally asserted his right to remain silent should have been suppressed, but the error was harmless. In addition the Fourth Department dismissed three counts of criminal possession of a weapon because all four counts related to the uninterrupted possession of a single weapon at different times. The court also noted that if the trial court gives a curative instruction after an objection, another objection or a motion for a mistrial is necessary to preserve the issue for appeal:

… [D]efendant told the police three times that he did not wish to speak to them. We conclude that the court’s determination that defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent is supported by the record with respect to the first such instance, because in that instance he “did not clearly communicate a desire to cease all questioning indefinitely” … , “especially in light of his continued participation in the conversation” … . We further conclude, however, that the remainder of the court’s determination is not supported by the record, inasmuch as, twice more during the questioning, “defendant said that he did not want to talk about [the crimes], thus unequivocally invoking his right to remain silent” … . Consequently, the court was required to suppress the statements that defendant made after invoking his right to remain silent for the second time. * * *

Defendant … contends in his main brief that the court erred in refusing to dismiss various counts of the indictment charging criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (3) inasmuch as the indictment charged him with multiple counts of that crime based on his commission of a singular continuing offense. We agree. “An indictment cannot charge a defendant with more than one count of a crime that can be characterized as a continuing offense unless there has been an interruption in the course of conduct” … . Here, the indictment charged defendant with four separate counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (3) for the uninterrupted possession of a single weapon at different times. We conclude that such possession “constituted a single offense for which he could be prosecuted only once” … . Consequently, we affirm that part of the judgment convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (3) in count 17 of the indictment, and we modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting him of that crime under counts 8, 11, and 16 of the indictment and dismissing those counts of the indictment. People v Johnston, 2021 NY Slip Op 01632, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

, ,

THE PROOF OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESION OF WEAPONS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s convictions for criminal use of a firearm and criminal possession of weapon because the proof of constructive possession was legally insufficient:

… [T]he evidence is legally insufficient to support her conviction of the counts of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Those counts were based on defendant’s constructive possession of a rifle that was found in the house after the police entered. The People failed to establish that defendant “exercised dominion or control over [the rifle] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” to establish that she had constructive possession of it … . People v Lora, 2021 NY Slip Op 01597, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

COUNTY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitted the mater for a determination whether defendant is eligible for youthful offender status:

Because defendant was convicted of an armed felony offense … , he is ineligible to receive a youthful offender adjudication unless the court determines that one of two mitigating factors is present … . If the court, in its discretion, determines that neither of the mitigating factors is present and states the reason for its determination on the record, then no further determination on the youthful offender application is required … . If, however, the court determines that one or more of those mitigating factors are present, and that defendant is therefore an eligible youth, it must then determine whether defendant is a youthful offender … .

Here, the court did not follow the procedure set forth in Middlebrooks [25 NY3d 516], inasmuch as it made no on-the-record determination of defendant’s eligibility for a youthful offender adjudication at sentencing … . People v Reed, 2021 NY Slip Op 01590, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

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