You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THE EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS AND PARAPHERNALIA IN AN APARTMENT IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT WAS INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after a bench trial, determined the evidence that defendant constructively possessed drug and paraphernalia was insufficient. The “possession” convictions, therefore, were against the weight of the evidence:

Although defendant was present in the apartment at the time the police executed the search warrant, no other evidence was presented “to establish that defendant was an occupant of the apartment or that he regularly frequented it” … . Two of the police officers testified that they did not discover anything that belonged to defendant on the premises. The clothing, cell phone, and identification found on the premises belonged instead to other men who were present in the apartment during the execution of the search warrant. Photographs found on the premises included the other men but not defendant. While defendant admitted that he had been at the apartment on one other occasion, the evidence did not otherwise specifically connect defendant to the apartment in which the contraband was found. We thus conclude that the weight of the evidence does not support a finding that defendant “exercised dominion and control over the [contraband] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” … . People v Ponder, 2021 NY Slip Op 00923, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

,

THE WARRANT CORRECTLY DESCRIBED THE PREMISES TO BE SEARCHED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE POLICE; DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION THE RESIDENCE WAS ACTUALLY THREE SEPARATE APARTMENTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SWORN AFFIDAVITS; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the defendant’s motion to suppress, alleging the premises to be searched was not adequately described in the warrant, was properly denied without a hearing. The warrant described a single family residence. Defendant alleged each of the three floors was a separate apartment. The Court of Appeals looked only at the evidence supporting the warrant and held the evidence available to the police established the building was a single residence. The defendant did not submit any sworn affidavits in support of the “three apartments” argument, so the motion court properly denied the motion without holding a hearing:

The warrant’s description of the place to be searched as “a private residence,” located at a unique, specified street address, was not facially deficient; given a commonsense reading, the warrant clearly commanded a search of “a” single residence, not a multi-unit building, at the marked street address. Because the warrant was facially sufficient, the case does not implicate the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Groh v Ramirez that courts may not rely on documents not incorporated and attached to the warrant in order to provide particularity that the warrant, on its face, lacks (see 540 US at 557-558). The motion court did not rely on the unincorporated warrant application materials to cure a facial deficiency in the warrant, which Groh forbids. Rather, the court considered those materials for a different purpose—to determine whether the warrant’s description of the place to be searched as a single private residence was supported by the information available to the detective who applied for the warrant and the court that issued the warrant. * * *

In People v Mendoza, we held that a suppression motion’s “factual sufficiency should be determined with reference to the face of the pleadings, the context of the motion and defendant’s access to information” (82 NY2d at 422; see also People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721, 729 [2001]). Although [defendant] lacked access to the materials that were before the warrant court, he had ready access to information about the actual conditions of the premises at the time of the search, but failed to provide it in support of his suppression motion. For example, he, his mother, or any other resident of the premises could have provided sworn affidavits or other evidence as to the separateness of the alleged residences on the three floors; the existence of unrelated tenants on the second floor; the obviousness to a visitor that the building contained separate residences—such as allegations that each unit had separate locking entry doors—or a variety of other types of evidence plainly known to residents of the house. People v Duval, 2021 NY Slip Op 00896, CtApp 2-11-21

 

,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY DRUGS, NOT ALCOHOL; DIRECTION TO INSTALL AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE APPLIES ONLY TO OFFENSES INVOLVING ALCOHOL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined the offense to which defendant pled guilty did not involve alcohol and, therefore, the direction to install an ignition interlock device must be vacated:

… [T]he County Court improperly imposed an ignition interlock device requirement upon the defendant. The defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2-a)(b) for “[d]riving while ability impaired by drugs” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[4]). A court may impose an ignition interlock device as a condition of probation and conditional discharge only for offenses involving alcohol (see Penal Law § 65.10[2][k-1]). The defendant’s conviction here falls outside the scope of the statute authorizing the imposition of such a condition … . People v Miller, 2021 NY Slip Op 00868, Second Dept 2-10-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH AN INDICTMENT NEED NOT ALLEGE ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY TO BE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT; WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A DEFENDANT ACTED AS A PRINCIPAL THE JURY MUST BE INSTRUCTED ON ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY; THE FAILURE TO SO INSTRUCT THE JURY HERE RENDERED THE CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the failure to instruct the jury on accessorial liability rendered the conviction against the weight of the evidence. The defendant and a companion were involved in an altercation with the victim. The companion slashed the victim and struck the victim with a baseball bat. There was no evidence defendant attacked the victim. The court noted that the indictment need not allege accessorial liability to be legally sufficient, but the jury must be instructed on the theory where there is no evidence a defendant acted as a principal:

The circumstances supported the inference that defendant was guilty of acting in concert in the attack, but undisputedly failed to support liability as a principal, that is, for personally attacking the victim. However, the prosecutor did not request, either before or after the court’s charge, that the court instruct the jury regarding accessorial liability (see Penal Law § 20.00), and the court did not give such an instruction.

Because there is “no legal distinction between liability as a principal or criminal culpability as an accomplice” … , an indictment need not contain any language relating to accessorial liability. However, this does not mean that a conviction may be sustained on an acting-in-concert theory when no such theory was submitted to the jury … . People v Ballo, 2021 NY Slip Op 00810, First Dept 2-9-21

 

,

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS RESIDE IN SARA-COMPLIANT HOUSING (AWAY FROM SCHOOL GROUNDS) UPON RELEASE FROM PRISON DOES NOT APPLY TO SEX OFFENDERS WHO HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Bannister, determined the conditions imposed by the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA) requiring certain sex offenders live in SARA-compliant housing upon release (away from school grounds) does not apply to those sex offenders who are adjudicated youthful offenders:

A “sex offender,” as defined in the Correction Law, “includes any person who is convicted of any of the [enumerated offenses]” … . A “sex offense” is defined as “a conviction of or a conviction of an attempt to commit [an enumerated crime]” … Additionally, the school grounds mandatory condition as set forth in Penal Law § 65.10 (4-a) (a) expressly applies only to those persons convicted of the enumerated offenses.

When a sentencing court adjudicates a defendant a youthful offender, however, the conviction is “deemed vacated and replaced by a youthful offender finding” … . CPL 720.35 (1) states that a youthful offender adjudication “is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense,” which is in keeping with the “legislative desire not to stigmatize youths [adjudicated youthful offenders] . . . with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts” … . Thus, by definition, a youthful offender is not a convicted sex offender and does not fall within the category of persons intended to be restricted under SARA. People ex rel. Suarez v Superintendent, Livingston Corr. Facility, 2021 NY Slip Op 00705, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR THE SORA HEARING WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; THE NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge did not conduct the required inquiry to ensure defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel for the SORA hearing was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The Fourth Department also noted that notice of the SORA hearing provided to the defendant was inadequate:

…[D]efendant’s purported waiver of the right to counsel is invalid. “It is well settled that defendants have a statutory right to counsel in SORA proceedings” … . In order for a defendant to validly waive his right to counsel, “the court must undertake a ‘searching inquiry . . . aimed at [e]nsuring that the defendant [is] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel’ ” … . Such an inquiry ensures that the defendant’s waiver is ” ‘made competently, intelligently and voluntarily’ ” … .

Here, County Court failed to conduct the necessary searching inquiry and, instead, relied upon defendant’s notation on the form notice he received about his SORA classification proceeding that he did “not wish to have counsel appointed.” …

… [T]he form notice provided to [defendant] about his SORA classification contained numerous deficiencies. The notice did not fully describe the SORA hearing or the consequences that would follow if defendant failed to appear … . It also appears that the court failed to provide defendant with a “copy of the recommendation received from the [Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders] and any statement of the reasons for the recommendation” … . In providing the requisite notice to defendants pursuant to section 168-n (3), courts should be tracking the language used in that statute instead of giving a shortened summary. People v Huntley, 2021 NY Slip Op 00688, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE AN ADEQUATE SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should not have been denied without a hearing. The motion alleged defense counsel was ineffective for failing to make an adequate speedy trial motion. The Fourth Department found there was a question of fact about whether 88 days should have been excluded from the speedy trial calculation because the defendant was evading arrest:

… [T]he People contended that the speedy trial motion would have been denied even if properly pleaded because defendant was attempting to avoid apprehension and thus the 88 days preceding the People’s first statement of readiness were excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (c) (i). In denying the CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing, the court concluded that the trial court had ruled that the 88 days between the commencement of the action and the People’s initial statement of readiness “was not chargeable to the People[] because defendant evaded arrest.” We note, however, that the only evidence in the record supporting the conclusion that defendant was evading arrest was the prosecutor’s statement at defendant’s arraignment on the indictment that she understood that defendant had “fled the area” and was heading to the New York City area, an assertion that was based solely on the supposition of an unnamed member of the police department’s central investigation division. We thus conclude that defendant’s submissions “support[] his contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel . . . and raise[] a factual issue that requires a hearing” … and that “[t]he People submitted nothing in opposition to the motion that would require or indeed allow the court to deny the motion without a hearing” … . People v Reed, 2021 NY Slip Op 00758, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the for cause challenges to two jurors should have been granted. Both jurors said they would have difficulty considering each crime separately when the crimes occurred close in time. The judge did not elicit any responses from the two jurors after they expressed their concerns:

… [D]efense counsel questioned each juror as to whether he or she would have trouble separating the proof in the case or understanding that the prosecution had to prove each individual incident beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as whether they could set aside any preconceived notions and consider each incident individually. Two prospective jurors indicated that they were not sure if they could consider each incident separately. Specifically, one prospective juror stated, “I don’t know if I could,” while a second prospective juror stated, “I’m not sure. Like I’m not sure who said it, like the timeframe like if it was one after another, another day, day, day, I don’t know if I can separate it. But if it’s like once, you know, a year or three years later this—maybe I would be able to separate it then.” …

In response, the court explained to the entire panel that defendant “is presumed to be innocent of each and every one of those [allegations], and the fact that there was something on one day, something on another day, you’re going to decide each and every one of those on its own merits.” The court also specifically asked the panel if they understood that they had “to decide each one of the cases on their—each one of the charges on their own merit.” The prospective jurors remained silent.  People v Padilla, 2021 NY Slip Op 00732, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE PLEA WAS VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant was not provided with sufficient information about the direct consequences of his guilty prior to entering the plea:

… Supreme Court failed to inform [defendant] that a fine would be imposed and failed to advise him that, following his indeterminate term of imprisonment, he would be subject to a mandatory three-year period of conditional discharge, during which he would be required to install and maintain an ignition interlock device in his vehicle … . …

“The direct consequences of a plea—those whose omission from a plea colloquy makes the plea per se invalid—are essentially the core components of a defendant’s sentence: a term of probation or imprisonment, a term of postrelease supervision, a fine”… , and the failure to advise a defendant at the time of his or her guilty plea of a direct consequence of that plea “requires that [the] plea be vacated” … . Here, defendant was advised of the fine and mandatory conditional discharge for the first time immediately prior to sentencing, when the prosecutor stated that defendant would be required to pay “all mandatory fines [and] surcharges” and that the period of incarceration “would be followed by a conditional discharge for the ignition interlock to be enforced.” We note that preservation of defendant’s contention was not required under the circumstances of this case inasmuch as “defendant did not have sufficient knowledge of the terms of the plea at the plea allocution and, when later advised, did not have sufficient opportunity to move to withdraw [his] plea” … . People v Tung Nguyen, 2021 NY Slip Op 00724, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

, ,

WHETHER THE HOUSE FIRE WAS DELIBERATELY SET WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE INSURANCE-FRAUD OFFENSES STEMMING FROM OVERSTATING THE VALUE OF DESTROYED ITEMS AND MAKING CLAIMS FOR ITEMS DEFENDANT DID NOT OWN OR POSSESS; THEREFORE THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE ARSON INVESTIGATOR’S TESTIMONY OUTWEIGHED ITS PROBATIVE EFFECT; ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the arson investigator’s testimony the fire had been deliberately set was irrelevant to the insurance-fraud offenses and was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. The defendant was charged with making false insurance claims for objects alleged to be lost in the house fire:

… [T]he investigator’s conclusion was highly prejudicial because it allowed the jury to speculate that defendant burned the house down with all of her possessions inside of it in order to collect the insurance money, which, if true, would be conclusive of her alleged intent to defraud. That prejudice was compounded by the limiting instructions that the court provided to the jury after opening statements. Inasmuch as the court had concluded prior to trial that the evidence in question was relevant and admissible for the purpose of completing the narrative of events, the court appropriately instructed the jury that the evidence would be received only for that limited purpose and, consistent with defendant’s request, also instructed the jury that she had not been charged with arson. However, the court further instructed the jury that, “every time you hear the word arson, . . . you should be thinking about not tying the arson to [defendant].” We conclude that the further instruction, if anything, had the effect of linking defendant to the arson in the minds of the jurors. Moreover, the prejudice to defendant was also compounded by the court’s failure to issue appropriate limiting instructions when the evidence in question was admitted and during the final charge to the jury … . Although defendant failed to preserve any challenge to the content or timing of the limiting instructions … we exercise our power to review in the interest of justice her contentions in those respects … . People v Murray, 021 NY Slip Op 00722, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

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