You are here: / Criminal Law

DEFENDANT WAS REMOVED FROM THE COURTROOM WHEN HE DISRUPTED THE PROCEEDINGS AS THE GUILTY VERDICT WAS BEING DELIVERED; DEFENDANT SHOULD FIRST HAVE BEEN WARNED THAT HE WOULD BE REMOVED IF HE CONTINUED TO DISRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the conviction, over a dissent, determined the defendant should not have been removed form the courtroom without first issuing a warning. The defendant was removed after disrupting the court as the verdict was being delivered:

After the jury foreperson announced “guilty” on the final charge (count 4) of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, the clerk proceeded to read back the verdict in order to inquire collectively of the jurors whether such was their verdict (see CPL 310.80). Before the jurors could respond, the defendant disrupted the proceeding by using profanity and declaring his innocence. The trial court immediately directed that the court officers remove the defendant from the courtroom. The defendant repeated his protestation and again the court directed that he be removed from the courtroom. Three more times the defendant either proclaimed his innocence or uttered a one-word profanity, and in each instance the court responded by directing that the defendant be removed from the courtroom. At some point during the foregoing exchanges, the defendant was apparently removed from the courtroom. The clerk read the verdict again, and made the requisite inquiry, to which the jurors responded. The defendant’s counsel thereafter requested that the jury be polled … . The jury was polled and the verdict was entered. …

A criminal defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of trial is encompassed within the confrontation clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions … and the New York Criminal Procedure Law … . The defendant’s outbursts and removal from the courtroom occurred during a material stage of the trial, as the jury had not yet been polled and the verdict had therefore not yet been entered … . However, “[a] defendant’s right to be present during trial is not absolute,” and “[t]he defendant may be removed from the courtroom if, after being warned by the trial court, the disruptive conduct continues” … . People v Antoine, 2020 NY Slip Op 07907, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

ATTEMPTED SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNT MUST BE DISMISSED AS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the attempted second degree murder count must be dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of attempted first degred murder:

… [T]he part of the judgment convicting defendant of attempted murder in the second degree must be reversed and count two of the indictment dismissed because attempted murder in the second degree is an inclusory concurrent count of attempted murder in the first degree … . People v Mcdonald, 2020 NY Slip Op 07825, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

CONSIDERING ALL THE MITIGATING FACTORS, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s assault conviction in the interest of justice and adjudicating defendant a youthful offender, in a full-fledged, comprehensive opinion by Justice Troutman, determined mitigating factors supported youthful offender status. Defendant was attacked by another high school student and didn’t realize the victim, a teacher, had intervened. The defendant injured the teacher’s hand with a knife. The Fourth Department went through all the so-called Cruikshank mitigating factors (People v Cruickshank, 105 AD2d 325, 334 [3d Dept 1985]) and further noted the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion by considering additional factors not mentioned in Cruikshank. All involved, including the prosecutor, the victim and the probation department, had recommended a youthful offender adjudication:

In addition to the Cruickshank factors, the parties raised and the court considered additional matters related to equity and discrimination. We reject defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in considering matters outside the Cruickshank factors. The applicable precedent states that the factors that must be considered “include” those nine factors … , and thus, as a matter of logic, those factors were never meant to be an exhaustive list of considerations. We conclude that matters of equity and discrimination are appropriate for sentencing courts to consider. Although we do not conclude that the court abused its discretion, we urge future courts to consider whether a defendant may be facing discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race or gender and to take an intersectional approach by considering the combined effect of the defendant’s specific characteristics and any bias that may arise therefrom … . Here, the prosecutor employed appropriate and effective restorative justice techniques and advocated for the result he believed just. We note that “prosecutors have ‘special responsibilities . . . to safeguard the integrity of criminal proceedings and fairness in the criminal process’ ” … , and this prosecutor deserves to be commended for discharging those responsibilities here. People v Z.H., 2020 NY Slip Op 07824,, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

WITNESS TAMPERING CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL REVERSED; NO CHARGES WERE PENDING AT THE TIME OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE WITNESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the witness tampering conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the evidence was legally insufficient:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of tampering with a witness in the third degree … , defendant contends that the conviction is based upon legally insufficient evidence. We agree. Although the evidence established that defendant assaulted the victim in violation of an order of protection and a few days later left the victim voicemails threatening her with violence if she pressed charges against him, defendant had not yet been arrested or charged with a crime in connection with the violation of the order of protection at the time he left the voicemails. Thus, at that time, the victim was not “about to be called as a witness in a criminal proceeding” … . People v Diroma, 2020 NY Slip Op 07817, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN HE REPRESENTED HIMSELF AT RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the resentencing, determined defendant was deprived of his right to counsel when he represented himself at resentencing:

We agree with defendant’s contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefs, as the People correctly concede, that he was deprived of his right to counsel when Supreme Court permitted defendant to represent himself at the resentencing proceeding without properly ruling on defendant’s multiple requests for assignment of counsel … . Denial of the right to counsel during a particular proceeding does not invariably require remittal for a repetition of the tainted proceeding, or any other remedy, inasmuch as “the remedy to which a defendant is entitled ordinarily depends on what impact, if any, the tainted proceeding had on the case as a whole” … . Here, however, the court’s failure to consider defendant’s motion for assigned counsel had an adverse impact on the resentencing proceeding because the absence of counsel prevented defendant from, inter alia, adequately contesting his adjudication as a second felony offender and arguing against the imposition of the maximum sentence permissible under the law. We therefore reverse the resentence and remit the matter to Supreme Court for resentencing, and we direct the court to ensure that defendant is afforded his right to counsel … . People v Caswell, 2020 NY Slip Op 07810, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

,

THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE REQUIRED FACTORS WHEN SENTENCING DEFENDANT AFTER DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF INTERIM PROBATION; SENTENCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the sentencing court did not take the necessary factors into consideration in sentencing defendant after defendant violated the terms of interim probation:

We agree with defendant that the court failed to exercise its discretion at sentencing. “[T]he sentencing discretion is a matter committed to the exercise of the court’s discretion . . . made only after careful consideration of all facts available at the time of sentencing” … . Due consideration should be “given to, among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction, i.e., societal protection, rehabilitation and deterrence” … .

Here, the court initially imposed a sentence of interim probation and advised defendant that, if he violated the terms of interim probation, the court would impose a term of 4½ years’ incarceration with 3 years’ postrelease supervision. When defendant violated the terms of interim probation, the court informed defendant at sentencing that it would not consider a lesser sentence because “your word is your word. That was the deal. I don’t think that would speak well for the program nor would it speak well of me . . . I’d lose confidence in myself.” The court further stated that “[w]e made an agreement, we made a deal . . . I’m going to abide by that deal.” The sentencing transcript is devoid of any indication that the court considered the crime charged, defendant’s circumstances, or the purpose of the penal sanction … . Nor is there any indication that the court considered the presentence report, which was prepared after the plea. We conclude that “the sentencing transcript, read in its entirety, does not reflect that the court conducted the requisite discretionary analysis” … . People v Ruise, 2020 NY Slip Op 07785, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNT DISMISSED A LESSER INCLUDED COUNT OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department dismissed the second degree murder count as a lesser included count of first degree murder. People v Beard, 2020 NY Slip Op 07763, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

THE APPEAL WAIVERS WERE NOT EXECUTED UNTIL SENTENCING AND WERE THEREFORE INVALID; ARGUMENTS ABOUT A LATE FILED OMNIBUS MOTION AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO FILE OMNIBUS MOTIONS DID NOT SURVIVE THE GUILTY PLEAS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the waivers of appeal were invalid and defendant’s arguments the court should have considered a late omnibus motion and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to file omnibus motions did not survive the guilty pleas:

The written waivers do not establish valid waivers because they were not executed until sentencing … and, even assuming, arguendo, that the written waivers had been executed at the time of the pleas, the court “failed to confirm that [defendant] understood the contents of the written waivers” … . …

Defendant contends in appeal No. 1 that the court abused its discretion in refusing to entertain, in the interest of justice and for good cause shown … , that part of his untimely omnibus motion seeking a Huntley hearing. We conclude, however, that defendant, by pleading guilty, forfeited appellate review of that contention. …

To the extent that defendant further contends in all three appeals that his first attorney’s failure to file a timely omnibus motion constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude under these circumstances that defendant’s contention likewise does not survive his guilty pleas. People v Parker, 2020 NY Slip Op 07747, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

,

AN EXCEPTION TO THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIED, ALLOWING TESTIMONY DESCRIBING THE CONTENTS OF DESTROYED VIDEO SURVEILLANCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Bannister, determined an exception to the best evidence rule applied and testimony about the contents of a destroyed video surveillance was properly admitted in this grand larceny case:

Defendant appeals from a judgment … arising from the theft of wireless speakers valued in excess of $3,000 from a Target store … . Prior to trial, the People moved in limine for permission to introduce testimony from the store’s asset protection team leader (APT leader) regarding the contents of destroyed video surveillance footage that had depicted the incident. * * *

The best evidence rule “simply requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and sought to be proven” …  “The rule protects against fraud, perjury, and inaccurate recollection by allowing the [factfinder] to judge a document by its own literal terms” … . “Under a long-recognized exception to the best evidence rule, secondary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original may be admitted upon threshold factual findings by the trial court that the proponent of the substitute has sufficiently explained the unavailability of the primary evidence . . . and has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith” … . The proponent of the secondary evidence “has the heavy burden of establishing, preliminarily to the court’s satisfaction, that it is a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original. Thus, as a threshold matter, the trial court must be satisfied that the proffered evidence is authentic and correctly reflects the contents of the original before ruling on its admissibility” … . * * *

… [T]he People met their burden of establishing that the APT leader’s testimony regarding the unpreserved footage was a reliable and accurate portrayal of the contents of that footage … . People v Jackson, 2020 NY Slip Op 07744, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

DESPITE THE HORRIFIC NATURE OF THE CRIME, DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS REDUCED BECAUSE OF HIS MENTAL ILLNESS AND INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, despite the horrific nature of the crime in this attempted murder and robbery case, over a dissent, reduced defendant’s sentence from 14 to 10 years because of his mental illness and intellectually disability:

This Court takes very seriously the severity of the injuries inflicted on the two victims in this case, and our reduction of defendant’s prison sentence in no way diminishes our horror at the pain and suffering they endured at the hands of defendant and his codefendants. However, based on the record before us, we find that defendant presents an extraordinary circumstance meriting the use of our interest of justice powers to reduce his prison sentence.

First, the record unequivocally shows that defendant has suffered intellectual and mental deficiencies since his childhood, which our Court has held renders a defendant’s conduct less blameworthy … .  Second, defendant’s cognitive disabilities rendered him overly susceptible to influence and manipulation … . Here, prior to the incident defendant had no felony or misdemeanor convictions and only one youthful offender adjudication stemming from a school fight. For the first 19 years of his life, defendant exhibited no inclination towards committing crime, let alone violent crime. This strongly suggests that defendant’s association with codefendant Torres, which began just one to two years prior to the incident, played an outsize influence on defendant and his role in the attacks. Third, defendant was 19 at the time of the incident, which, in combination with his cognitive deficiencies, rendered him even more susceptible to negative influences … . We have long held that a defendant’s young age may render the individual less culpable … . Finally, in research cited by defendant, people with serious psychiatric disorders are more likely to be violently victimized and housed in segregation while incarcerated. … As defendant himself stated in his CPL article 730 examination, he attempted suicide over 35 times while at Rikers Island. We find, therefore, that an extended term of incarceration would have an extremely harsh impact on defendant. People v Watt, 2020 NY Slip Op 07721, First Dept 12-22-20

 

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