You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A MOTION NOT RULED UPON BELOW; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department remitted the case for a ruling on defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal. An appellate court cannot consider a motion not ruled upon:

Defendant … contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction with respect to all counts. At the close of proof, defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal, and the court reserved decision. There is no indication in the record that the court ruled on defendant’s motion (cf. CPL 290.10 [1]). Thus, we may not address defendant’s contention because, “in accordance with People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]) and People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998], rearg denied 93 NY2d 849 [1999]), we cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . motion as a denial thereof” … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a ruling on defendant’s motion … . People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 01675, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

THE ALLEGED VICTIM IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION TESTIFIED SHE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED HER BOYFRIEND OF THE RAPE AND, A FEW HOURS LATER, NOTIFIED HER MOTHER; HER MOTHER TESTIFIED BUT THE BOYFRIEND WAS NOT CALLED; THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE TESTIMONY WOULD BE CUMULATIVE; THE CONCEPT OF “CUMULATIVE” EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defense request for the missing witness jury instruction should have been granted. The alleged victim in this rape case testified she promptly reported the rape to her boyfriend and, a few hours later, told her mother. The People called her mother as a witness, but not her boyfriend. The trial judge denied the missing witness charge on the ground that the testimony would be cumulative:

In People v Smith (33 NY3d 454 [2019]), the Court of Appeals held that the proponent of a missing witness charge has no initial burden to show that the missing testimony would not be cumulative of the remaining testimony, and that the concept of cumulativeness in this context functions only as a tool for defeating an otherwise-meritorious request for a missing witness instruction (id. at 458-460). Thus, the Court of Appeals explained, the opponent of the missing witness instruction has the burden of showing that the missing testimony would be cumulative in order to defeat the requested instruction on that ground (id.).

Applying the standard set forth in Smith, we conclude that the People failed to show that the boyfriend’s testimony would have been cumulative of the mother’s testimony. The respective accounts would concern different outcries, separated by several hours and many blocks. The boyfriend could not have duplicated the mother’s account of the complainant’s outcry, because the boyfriend was not present during that particular event. Conversely, the mother could not have duplicated the boyfriend’s account of the complainant’s outcry, because the mother was not present during that particular event. People v Garcia, 2021 NY Slip Op 01571, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

WHEN DEFENDANT BECAME DISRUPTIVE JUST BEFORE THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE BROUGHT IN THE JUDGE HAD HIM REMOVED FROM THE COURTROOM WITHOUT FIRST WARNING HIM AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the failure to warn defendant before removing him from the courtroom during jury selection required a new trial:

On the morning that jury selection was scheduled to begin, but before the prospective jurors had been brought into the courtroom, defendant began shouting, insisting that the court was calling him by the wrong name and that he could not wear the clothes provided to him. The court immediately had defendant removed from the courtroom, stating that it deemed defendant to have waived his right to be present based on his “outburst and behavior.” After defendant had been removed, the court stated that defendant’s “voice was raised to a level of almost deafening proportions, and it was very clear that it was imminent he was going to turn violent.” Defendant was absent for the selection of the first 11 jurors, but returned to the courtroom at the next recess and did not cause any further disruption.

A defendant has a fundamental right to be present at all material stages of trial, and that right is “violated by his or her absence during the questioning of prospective jurors during the impaneling of the jury” … . However, “[a] defendant’s right to be present during trial is not absolute” … . CPL 260.20 provides, in relevant part, “that a defendant who conducts himself in so disorderly and disruptive a manner that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom may be removed from the courtroom if, after he has been warned by the court that he will be removed if he continues such conduct, he continues to engage in such conduct” … . People v Brown, 2021 NY Slip Op 01668, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CHEMICAL BREATH TEST SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED; NEW SUPPRESSION HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, on an appeal by the People, determined County Court should not have suppressed the chemical breath test evidence in this DWI case because the People were not given an opportunity to respond to that suppression issue. The matter was remitted for a new suppression hearing:

… [T]he court erred in granting that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress evidence because the court failed to notify the People of its intention to consider that issue and failed to give the People an opportunity to present evidence at the hearing on that issue … . At the Huntley hearing, the issues of the officer’s compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 and defendant’s limited right to counsel were merely ancillary. Moreover, we reject defendant’s contention that the limited evidence that was admitted at the hearing supports the court’s determination to suppress the chemical breath test results. The evidence at the hearing established that the police administered a field breath test and then a chemical breath test at the jail, only the latter of which is the subject of section 1194 (2) (a) and would be admissible at trial … , but the court conflated the administration of both tests in determining that suppression was warranted. On this record, it is unclear whether the officer complied with section 1194 (2) (b) by warning defendant of the consequences of refusal in ” ‘clear and unequivocal language’ ” before administering the chemical test … . The record is also unclear whether defendant, who made a request to speak with his attorney, was afforded the opportunity to do so prior to deciding whether to submit to the chemical breath test … . People v Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 01570, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID AND THE SENTENCE WAS UNDULY HARSH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and his sentence was unduly harsh. The sentences were modified to run concurrently, not consecutively:

We agree with defendant that the purported waiver of the right to appeal is not enforceable inasmuch as the totality of the circumstances fails to reveal that defendant “understood the nature of the appellate rights being waived” … . Here, County Court provided no oral explanation of the waiver of the right to appeal and the written waiver executed by defendant “mischaracterized the waiver of the right to appeal, portraying it in effect as an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal” … . We note that the better practice is for the court to use the Model Colloquy, which “neatly synthesizes . . . the governing principles” … . People v Smith, 2021 NY Slip Op 01666, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

SENTENCE DEEMED UNDULY HARSH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s sentence (12 years) was unduly harsh and imposed a sentence (eight years) close to that promised before defendant rejected the offer and went to trial:

The charges arose from defendant’s unsuccessful attempt to rob a cab driver at knifepoint. Sitting behind the victim, defendant pulled out a knife and put it to the victim’s neck. The victim grabbed the knife and a struggle ensued during which the vehicle, which had been stopped, started moving and crashed into a tree. During the struggle, the victim sustained a wound to his hand (from grabbing the knife) and a cut on his neck that was not life threatening. Both men then exited the vehicle. …

After realizing that the victim had been injured, defendant yelled for help and said, “I did it.” Defendant took off his sweatshirt and offered it to the victim to staunch the bleeding. When neighbors and others arrived at the scene, they saw defendant crying and pleading with them to help the victim. Although no one prevented him from fleeing, defendant remained at the scene until the police arrived and was taken into custody without incident. When approached by the responding officer, defendant said, “Officer, I stabbed him. I was trying to rob him.” While in custody, defendant repeatedly asked whether the victim was going to be all right. The victim was given stitches for his wounds and released from the hospital later that night.

We agree with defendant that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Defendant was 41 years old when he committed the crimes in this case, and he had previously been convicted of only one other crime, a misdemeanor in 2001 for which he was sentenced to probation. The presentence report indicates that defendant has an extensive history of mental illness and no prior incidents of violence. People v Zdatny, 2021 NY Slip Op 01659, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

THE SENTENCE FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCE FOR MURDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the sentence for criminal possession of a weapon should not have been imposed consecutively to the sentence for murder:

… [T]he court erred in directing that the sentence imposed on count three of the indictment, charging criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (3), run consecutively to the sentence imposed on count one, i.e., murder in the second degree. The People had the burden of establishing that the consecutive sentences were legal, i.e., that the crimes were committed through separate acts or omissions … , and they failed to meet that burden. The People failed to present evidence at trial that defendant’s act of possessing the loaded firearm ‘was separate and distinct from’ his act of shooting the victim … . People v Alligood, 2021 NY Slip Op 01628, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENT, WHO HAD ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT TO RAPE, ASSAULT AND OTHER CHARGES, SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER REQUIRING CONTINUED PLACEMENT IN A SECURE FACILITY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent constituted a danger to himself and others and should remain in a secure facility. Respondent had entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect to rape, assault, criminal possession of a weapon and endangering the welfare of a child. Supreme Court had found that respondent was no longer suffering from a dangerous mental disorder and placed him in a nonsecure facility:

To establish that a person suffers from a dangerous mental disorder requiring commitment in a secure facility, the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the person suffers from a “mental illness,” as that term is statutorily defined (see Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03 [20]), and “that because of such condition he [or she] constitutes a physical danger to himself [or herself] or others” (CPL 330.20 [1] [c]). * * *

Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s evidence and instead concluded that respondent no longer suffered from a dangerous mental disorder, implicitly crediting the opinion of respondent’s expert. However, the court’s factual findings were self-contradictory. Supreme Court credited petitioner’s expert’s diagnoses of respondent, finding, among other things, that respondent has bipolar disorder and a traumatic brain injury. These diagnoses, which cause impaired judgment and impulse control, contributed to the opinion of petitioner’s expert that respondent constituted a present danger to himself and to his female peers. Without explanation, respondent’s expert omitted the diagnoses of bipolar disorder and traumatic brain injury. In concluding that respondent no longer suffers from a dangerous mental disorder, Supreme Court relied upon an opinion that did not account for diagnoses that the court found respondent to have. Thus, the court never considered the impact that the diagnoses have on respondent’s behavior and present dangerousness.  Matter of James Q., 2021 NY Slip Op 01545, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND RECANTATION TESTIMONY TO WARRANT A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. The defendant presented sufficient evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence (recantation testimony), as well as evidence of actual innocence, to warrant a hearing on all three issues:

Defendant avers, in his sworn affidavit, that he repeatedly advised his trial counsel that the victim’s allegation that defendant did not live with her at the time of the incident was false and that this false claim could be easily disproven, but trial counsel “was not interested and did nothing.” Defendant supported this claim with four sworn affidavits of witnesses who all stated that defendant lived with the victim at the time of the incident. These affidavits were not merely conclusory, but rather contained factual allegations based upon firsthand observations by the witnesses … . * * *

… [D]efendant proffered three separate affidavits from witnesses, as well as text messages purportedly from the victim, asserting that they established that the victim had fabricated the allegations against him. * * *

Although we are mindful that recantation testimony is “inherently unreliable” … , the “totality of the circumstances” presented here demonstrates that a hearing is required to scrutinize the circumstances regarding the recantations as well as the credibility of the witnesses, and to create a record … . People v Stetin, 2021 NY Slip Op 01529, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

,

DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS ARSON AND ANIMAL TORTURE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE JUROR EXPRESSED A HIGHLY EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO INJURY TO ANIMALS AND THE COURT NEVER SPECIFICALLY ASKED IF SHOULD COULD BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions of arson and torturing animals, determined defendant’s for cause challenge to a juror who expressed her highly emotional reaction to the injury of animals should have been granted:

Defendant challenged this prospective juror for cause on the ground that “because of the animals, she couldn’t be fair and impartial.” County Court denied this challenge noting that prospective juror No. 16 had indicated that “it would be very difficult” and that “she would cry,” not that she had stated she could not be impartial. Defendant then exercised a peremptory challenge to remove prospective juror No. 16, and later exhausted his peremptory challenges. Relative to the ability of prospective juror No. 16 to be fair and impartial due to her affinity for animals, despite being asked twice, she never unequivocally stated that she could be … . Thus, the court should have posed questions to rehabilitate the prospective juror “by obtaining such assurances or, if rehabilitation was not possible,” excuse her … . By failing to do so, the court committed reversible error, considering that defendant exercised a peremptory challenge to remove this prospective juror and exhausted such challenges … . People v Rios, 2021 NY Slip Op 01530, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

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