You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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

 

,

THE DRIVER BEING VISIBLY NERVOUS, COUPLED WITH THE VEHICLE HAVING OUT-OF-STATE PLATES AND BEING IN A HIGH CRIME AREA, DID NOT PROVIDE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY; THEREFORE THE POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASKING WHETHER THERE WERE ANY WEAPONS IN THE CAR, A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of attempted criminal possession of a weapon and dismissing the indictment, determined the police officer did not have a founded suspicion of criminality when he asked whether any weapons were in the vehicle:

Defendant was a passenger in a car, bearing a Massachusetts license plate, that was stopped for driving through a red light in a “high crime” neighborhood. The driver of the car complied with the demands of one of the officers for his driver’s license and that he get out of the car, but was “visibly nervous,” breathing heavily, and stammering in his responses to the officer’s questions. Moments later, one of the other officers asked whether there were any weapons in the car. This ultimately led to the recovery of a pistol from defendant.

These circumstances did not give rise to the founded suspicion of criminality that was required to authorize this level two inquiry … . Contrary to the People’s contention, neither occurrence of the stop for a traffic violation in a “high crime” area, nor the unproven perception of one of the officers that in general out-of-state license plates are more highly correlated with criminality than New York license plates, elevated the suspicion to the level required to authorize a common-law inquiry. People v Jonathas, 2021 NY Slip Op 01954, First Dept 3-30-21

 

,

BASED UPON JUROR MISCONDUCT, THE TRIAL JUDGE SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER DID NOT SUFFER FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED; THE COURT OF APPEALS REINSTATED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S RULING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, without any discussion of the facts or the law, reversed the Appellate Division (Matter of State of New York v Donald G., 2020 NY Slip Op 04716, Fourth Dept 8-20-20) and reinstated the trial court’s setting aside the verdict based on juror misconduct. The jury had decided defendant, a sex offender, did not suffer from a mental abnormality requiring civil commitment and should be released. The trial judge set aside that verdict and ordered a new trial. The trial judge’s ruling was here reinstated by the Court of Appeals:

Under these circumstances, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law in ordering a new trial in the interest of justice on the ground of juror misconduct. Respondent’s remaining contentions have been considered and are without merit. Matter of State of New York v Donald G., 2021 NY Slip Op 01935, CtApp 3-30-21

 

 

​

,

EXECUTIVE LAW 552 (PART OF THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ACT), WHICH CREATED A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO PROSECUTE CRIMES OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF VULNERABLE PERSONS IN STATE FACILITIES, IS UNCONSTITIONAL TO THE EXTENT IT ALLOWS THE PROSECUTION OF CRIMES BY AN UNELECTED APPOINTEE OF THE GOVERNOR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over two concurring opinions, determined Executive Law 552 (part of the Protection of People with Special Needs Act), which created a special prosecutor to prosecute crimes of abuse or neglect of vulnerable persons in facilities operated by the state, is unconstitutional to the extent it allows an unelected appointee of the governor to prosecute crimes. The portions of the statute which do not relate to the prosecution of crimes, however, remain viable:

Given that the purpose of enacting the Special Needs Act was to “bolster the ability of the state to respond more effectively to abuse and neglect of vulnerable persons” … , it is apparent that the Legislature would wish that as much of Executive Law § 552 aimed at protecting that class of victims as can be preserved remain in effect. Nor would excising the offending provisions leave the remainder without any beneficial impact. Therefore, while the subdivisions of the statute that provide the special prosecutor with the discretionary authority to bring criminal cases … must be struck as unconstitutional … , the portion of Executive Law § 552 (1) that provides the special prosecutor with non-prosecutorial functions should remain in force. Likewise, we leave intact Executive Law § 552 (2) (a) (ii), which empowers the special prosecutor “to cooperate with and assist district attorneys and other local law enforcement officials in their efforts against . . . abuse or neglect of vulnerable persons,” without interfering with those efforts (emphasis added). Cooperation with the local District Attorney furthers the overarching goal of the Legislature—providing resources to address crimes of abuse and neglect committed against vulnerable persons—without infringing on that constitutional officer’s essential authority. People v Viviani, 2021 NY Slip Op 01934, CtApp 3-30-21

 

HERE THE ASSAULT SECOND DEGREE COUNT WAS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT ON A POLICE OFFICER; THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS REVERSED AND THE COUNT DISMISSED; THE TERM “INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT” WAS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that assault in the second degree is an inclusory concurrent count of assault on a police officer and the assault second conviction must therefore be reversed and the count dismissed:

Counts are concurrent when “concurrent sentences only may be imposed in case of conviction thereon,” and such counts “are ‘inclusory’ when the offense charged in one is greater than any of those charged in the others and when the latter are all lesser offenses included within the greater” (CPL 300.30 [3], [4]). Here, concurrent sentencing was required inasmuch as the same conduct formed the basis of each count … and, as charged here, assault in the second degree is a lesser included offense of assault on a police officer … . People v Felong, 2021 NY Slip Op 01901, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

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