You are here: / Criminal Law
,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEVER THE TWO OFFENSES, WHICH OCCURRED ON DIFFERENT DATES AND WERE UNRELATED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the two separate crimes which occurred on different dates should not have been joined for a single trial. Defendant was charged with leaving the scene of an accident on September 4, 2011, and DWI on January 15, 2012. The officer who arrested defendant in January 2012 for DWI testified he recognized the vehicle and driver from the video and stills taken during the September 2011 incident:

Offenses are joinable even though they are based on different criminal transactions if proof of one offense would be material and admissible as evidence in chief upon a trial of the other offense or the offenses are defined by the same or similar statutory provisions … . Severance of counts contained in a single indictment should be granted when a defendant shows that the counts were not joinable under the statutory criteria … .

… [N]one of the proof necessary for each offense was material to the other. The facts underlying defendant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident stemmed from a September 4, 2011 incident. The victim was lying on the road of the Henry Hudson Parkway. After other drivers stopped to try and pull the victim out of the road, a dark Acura ran him over and continued driving without stopping. … There was video footage and still pictures from the toll plaza that showed the cars of the drivers who stopped to help, followed immediately by the dark Acura. … Defendant was the registered owner of the dark Acura.

The DWI conviction was based on an incident that occurred four months later, on January 15, 2012. At that time, defendant was observed by police officers weaving in and out of his lane and driving 85 mph in a 50-mph zone. The officer who arrested defendant for the DWI was permitted to testify relative to the charge of leaving the scene that he recognized the vehicle and driver in the video and stills taken on September 4, 2011 as the same vehicle and person he stopped on January 15, 2012. People v Santiago, 2021 NY Slip Op 00130, First Dept 1-12-21

 

,

THE TRAFFIC STOP AND CANINE SEARCH WERE JUSTIFIED; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE CANINE SEARCH WAS NOT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the traffic stop was valid and the extended detention for a canine search was justified. The dissent argued the canine search was not justified:

The trooper testified that it was fully dark at the time of the stop and that he and defendant had their vehicles’ headlights on, as did other vehicles passing on the roadway. When the trooper turned off his headlights briefly to check the license plate light, he observed that it did not illuminate the plate. Thus, it was “objectively reasonable” for the trooper to conclude that the requisite visibility did not exist and that a traffic violation had been committed … .  Additionally, the trooper was entitled to rely upon the investigator’s previous observation that defendant was driving without a seatbelt — a separate traffic violation that also provided probable cause for the stop … .

… [T]he trooper’s observations of defendant engaging in behaviors commonly seen in outdoor drug transactions at a location known for such activity, his “slow roll response” and furtive movements after the trooper initiated the stop and his evasive, inconsistent answers to the trooper’s questions created a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot … . Thus, the trooper properly extended the stop beyond its initial justification and conducted the canine search — which, in any event, took place only nine minutes after the initial stop and, according to the trooper, was completed in less than a minute … . People v Blandford, 2021 NY Slip Op 00058, Third Dept 1-7-21

 

,

A JUROR WHO WAS A RETIRED DETECTIVE ACTED AS AN UNSWORN EXPERT WITNESS IN THE DELIBERATIONS; “MOLINEUX” EVIDENCE DEFENDANT LOOKED AT PORNOGRAPHY BEFORE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTING THE SEX-RELATED OFFENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s sex abuse and burglary convictions, determined: (1) a juror who was a retired detective acted as an unsworn expert witness in the deliberations; and (2) evidence defendant looked at pornography before allegedly committing the crimes was not necessary to prove identity and any probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect:

… [A] juror who was a retired detective opined on the feasibility of DNA and fingerprint extraction, the likelihood that tests were conducted and evidence was suppressed regarding a set of keys that were in evidence, and the probability that defendant was lying based on his speech patterns and body language. These opinions, which were communicated to and apparently influenced the jury, were within the scope of the juror’s specialized expertise and were explicitly offered on the basis thereof, and at least some of these opinions concerned material issues, including defendant’s credibility and whether he entered the victim’s apartment by mistake … . …

… [E]vidence that defendant accessed a pornography website on the phone shortly before committing the charged offense should have been excluded at trial as improper propensity evidence. This evidence was not admissible to establish defendant’s intent in sexually abusing the victim, which could be readily inferred from the charged conduct itself … . While it may have been admissible to establish defendant’s intent in entering the victim’s apartment, its probative value was outweighed by its prejudice … . People v Alvarez, 2021 NY Slip Op 00092, First Dept 1-7-21

 

, ,

THE POLICE WITNESSES AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WERE NOT CREDIBLE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, determined defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted because the People’s witnesses at the suppression hearing were not credible. Therefore the People did not meet their burden to show the legality of the police conduct. The indictment was dismissed. The police witnesses offered conflicting versions of the stop of the car in which defendant was a passenger and the ability to determine, from outside the car, that a credit card on the console was forged:

“Given the severely undermined credibility of the arresting officer[s], it is unclear exactly what happened during the encounter between the officer[s] and the defendant, and the hearing court was confronted with choices of possible scenarios” … . Under similar circumstances, this Court has stated that, “where credibility is in issue, multiple choice questions are neither desirable nor acceptable,” and the fact-finder should refuse to “select a credible version based upon guesswork”… . …

… [W]e decline to credit any of the testimony of the People’s witnesses … . Accordingly, “[u]pon scrutiny of the People’s evidence at the suppression hearing, we can only conclude that they failed to carry their burden of going forward and demonstrating the legality of the police conduct in the first instance[,]” including the legality of the stop … . In view of this failure, “all further actions by the police as a direct result of the stop were illegal . . . [and] the evidence recovered as a result of the unlawful stop must be suppressed” … . Accordingly, “exercising our independent power of factual review, we conclude that the defendant’s motion to suppress . . . should have been granted”… . Without the suppressed evidence, there would not be legally sufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt. Accordingly, the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Harris, 2020 NY Slip Op 08079, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

A DEFENDANT CAN NOT BE CONVICTED OF BOTH FORGERY AND POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME FORGED INSTRUMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Departed noted “‘an individual may be charged with both forgery and criminal possession of a forged instrument, [but] [s]he cannot be convicted of both crimes with respect to the same forged instrument'” … . People v Filan, 2020 NY Slip Op 08078, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO NOTICE THE PEOPLE WERE GOING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE SHE TYPED IN THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM A DETECTIVE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined defendant was entitled to notice that the People were going to introduce evidence that she typed in the combination of a safe in response to a request from a detective:

Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the defendant’s act of typing in the combination to the safe, which was made in direct response to Detective Theodore’s request that the safe “needed to be opened,” did not amount to a statement made to a law enforcement officer which, “if involuntarily made would render the evidence thereof suppressible upon motion pursuant to [CPL 710.20(3)]” … .

It is well settled that “any pertinent communication, whether made by statement or conduct,” may be suppressed if made in violation of the defendant’s right against self-incrimination … . Our view is that the defendant physically entering the combination to open the safe, rather than verbally communicating that combination to the police … , does not make her response any less communicative or testimonial in nature, since the act unquestionably expressed the contents of the defendant’s mind … . To the extent our decision in People v Morales (248 AD2d 731) suggests a different conclusion, it should no longer be followed.

Moreover, since the defendant’s knowledge of the safe’s combination was the only evidence establishing her dominion and control over its contents, the act of unlocking the safe was undoubtedly incriminating … . In addition, the fact that the defendant was still in handcuffs and had not yet been advised of her Miranda rights when Detective Theodore made his request raises questions as to whether her act of unlocking the safe was voluntary … . Thus, this is not a situation where the requirement of a CPL 710.30 notice was obviated because there was no question of the voluntariness of the challenged statement. People v Porter, 2020 NY Slip Op 08122, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE HOME AND THEREFORE COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ARREST WARRANT, THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION BECAUSE THE POLICE ENTERED THE HOME WITH CONSENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL ARGUED THE POLICE DID NOT GET A WARRANT TO DELAY THE ATTACHMENT OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND PROCURE STATEMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers raising a question of first impression, determined the police did not violate the New York Constitution when they entered the home looking for defendant and made a warrantless arrest. The police had probable cause when they went to the home and defense counsel argued they did not get a warrant in order to delay the attachment of the right to counsel and obtain statements. The Second Department determined there was no Payton violation because the motion court credited the police testimony claiming they entered the home with the consent of the person who answered the door:

… [T]he defendant’s appellate counsel specifically contends that where the police, armed with probable cause and ample time to obtain an arrest warrant, nevertheless choose to make a warrantless arrest in the absence of exigent circumstances, their conduct must be deemed to violate the defendant’s indelible right to counsel under the New York State Constitution (see People v Harris, 77 NY2d at 440).

While this issue presents what appears to be an important constitutional question of first impression, we see no viable path to resolving this question in the defendant’s favor within the current framework of New York law. Although the hearing evidence fully supports the defendant’s view that the police went to the subject residence with the intent of making a warrantless arrest—indeed, the People did not present any evidence to suggest any alternative motive for the early morning visit—New York law does not presently recognize a “new category of Payton violations based on subjective police intent” (… People v Harris, 77 NY2d 434). Therefore, we decline to find that the police conduct in this case amounted to a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights under Payton and/or Harris.

Moreover, since the hearing court’s supportable finding of voluntary consent negates the defendant’s Payton claim, we need not consider the defendant’s further contention regarding the causal link between the warrantless arrest and his subsequent statements to the police. People v Cuencas, 2020 NY Slip Op 08118, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

DEFENDANT, AT THE PLEA PROCEEDINGS, WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION TO BE IMPOSED OR THE MAXIMUM WHICH COULD BE IMPOSED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, noted County Court did not specify the period of postrelease supervision which would be imposed, or the maximum which could be imposed at the plea proceedings:

“‘[A] trial court has the constitutional duty to ensure that a defendant, before pleading guilty, has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences'” … . “To meet due process requirements, a defendant ‘must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action'” … , and “[w]ithout such procedures, vacatur of the plea is required” … . It is not enough for a court to generally inform a defendant that a term of postrelease supervision will be imposed as a part of the sentence … . Rather, for a plea of guilty to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the court must inform the defendant of either the specific period of postrelease supervision that will be imposed or, at the least, the maximum potential duration of postrelease supervision that may be imposed … .

Here, at the plea proceeding, the County Court did not specify the period of postrelease supervision to be imposed or, alternatively, the maximum potential duration of postrelease supervision that could be imposed. The court’s failure to so advise the defendant prevented his plea from being knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. People v Cabrera, 2020 NY Slip Op 08074, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

AFTER THE DISCHARGE OF A JUROR FOR MISCONDUCT, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REPLACED THE JUROR WITH AN ALTERNATE WHO HAD BEEN EXCUSED AND SENT HOME; THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the trial court properly replaced a juror for misconduct with an alternate jury who had been excused and sent home:

The plain language of CPL 270.35 (1) states, in relevant part, that

“If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, a juror is unable to continue serving . . . the court must discharge such juror. If an alternate juror or jurors are available for service, the court must order that the discharged juror be replaced by the alternate juror whose name was first drawn and called, provided, however, that if the trial jury has begun its deliberations, the defendant must consent to such replacement.”

Thus, according to the plain language of CPL 270.35 (1), the trial court was required to decide if the alternate was “available for service,” and did not require the consent of defendant given that the jury had not begun its deliberations. People v Murray, 2020 NY Slip Op 08007, First Dept 12-29-30

 

,

DEFENDANT’S CONTEMPT CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION STANDS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF PROTECTION WAS BASED ON AN OFFENSE SINCE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the order of protection based on a conviction for an offense which has been found unconstitutional was voidable, not void, and therefore remained in effect.

Defendant was properly convicted of first-degree criminal contempt under Penal Law § 215.51(b)(v) for violating an order of protection that had been issued upon his conviction of second-degree aggravated harassment under former Penal Law § 240.30(1)(a). The contempt conviction was valid even though the Court of Appeals declared that the aggravated harassment provision underlying the order of protection was unconstitutional in People v Golb (23 NY3d 455 [2014] … . Golb was decided after the order of protection was issued against defendant, but before he violated it. …

The Golb decision did not render defendant’s order of protection void on its face, but merely voidable.

Defendant’s underlying conviction was final before Golb was decided. The order of protection was indisputably valid at the time of its issuance. After Golb, there are no reported cases holding that convictions under former Penal Law § 240.30 (1)(a) are automatically vacated. Instead, where there was vacatur of a conviction or order of protection, it was in response to a request for relief either on appeal or in a posttrial motion … . …

Defendant did not challenge the order of protection by appealing the aggravated harassment conviction against him … . His subsequent CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the conviction and order of protection based on Golb was denied … . Defendant was therefore required to comply with the extant order and his violation constituted criminal contempt … . People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 08011, First Dept 12-29-20

 

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