You are here: / Criminal Law

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

 

, ,

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

 

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