You are here: / Criminal Law
,

IT WAS ERROR TO ALLOW IN EVIDENCE PHOTOGRAPHS OF A BAYONET WHICH WAS NOT THE WEAPON USED IN THE STABBING; THE MAJORITY FOUND THE ERROR HARMLESS, THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined admitting in evidence photographs of a bayonet which was not used in the stabbing was harmless error. The dissent argued the error was not harmless in this first degree manslaughter case:

The court should not have permitted the People to introduce photographs taken by the police of an M9 bayonet that was found in a collection of knives in defendant’s bedroom, but was concededly not the weapon used in the crime. The photographs were irrelevant as demonstrative evidence … , because nothing in the record provided a basis for the court to conclude that the bayonet in the photographs resembled the weapon that defendant used to stab the victim … . Even assuming that defendant’s statement supported the inference that the unrecovered weapon used in the crime was also a bayonet, and that it came from defendant’s collection, there was no evidence that all of defendant’s bayonets, which could have come from different eras and armed forces, looked like M9s.

FROM THE DISSENT:

… [T]he People told the jury in its summation that a bayonet knife is designed to kill people; that killing people is the only use for a bayonet knife; that a bayonet knife is not used to open things; and that the army and military gives out weapons, like bayonet knives, to kill people. None of these statements were elicited during the testimony of any witness or made in response to defense counsel’s summation, nor could they have been reasonably inferred from the evidence. People v Guevara, 2020 NY Slip Op 07297, First Dept 12-3-20

 

,

STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE NOT MET; CONVICTION REDUCED TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SECOND DEGREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the statutory criteria for criminal contempt first degree were not met and reduced the conviction to criminal contempt second degree:

As the People concede, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal contempt in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 215.51(c). An essential element of that crime is that the defendant has violated an order of protection issued pursuant to “sections two hundred forty and two hundred fifty-two of the domestic relations law, articles four, five, six and eight of the family court act and section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law, or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which requires the respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued” … . Here, the defendant was accused of violating an order of protection issued pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 530.13. Criminal Procedure Law § 530.13, which provides protection to victims of crimes other than family offenses, is not one of the authorities enumerated in Penal Law § 215.51(c). Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree was legally insufficient because the People could not prove an essential element of the offense … . However, because the evidence was legally sufficient to support a conviction of the lesser included offense of criminal contempt in the second degree (see Penal Law § 215.50[3]), the defendant’s conviction is reduced accordingly … . People v Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 07229, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

,

THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT STEMMED FROM HIS STRIKING AND SERIOUSLY INJURING AN EIGHT-POUND DOG; THERE WAS NO NEED TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; INDICTMENT REINSTATED OVER A DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court on the People’s appeal, over an extensive dissent, determined the grand jury proceedings were not defective due to the prosecutor’s failure to instruct the grand jury on the justification defense. The charges against the defendant stemmed from his striking and severely injuring a dog. The Second Department held a reasonable view of the evidence did not warrant the justification instruction:

“‘[A] prosecutor should instruct the Grand Jury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'” … . “The failure to charge justification constitutes reversible error only when the defense is ‘supported by a reasonable view of the evidence—not by any view of the evidence, however artificial or irrational'” … . …

There is no reasonable view of the evidence that forcefully striking and injuring the approximate eight-pound terrier poodle in the manner undertaken by the defendant, who was approximately 6 feet tall and weighed 200 pounds, was necessary as an emergency measure to avoid, at most, a bite by this small animal through denim pants. People v Jimenez, 2020 NY Slip Op 07223, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED HOURS AWAY FROM HIS BROOKLYN ATTORNEY AND ATTEMPTS TO MOVE DEFENDANT TO NEW YORK CITY WERE UNSUCCESSFUL; UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS ATTORNEY BEFORE ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, considering the appeal in the interest of justice, determined defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. Defendant was housed far away from his Brooklyn attorney and the attempts to have him moved to New York City were ignored by the Department of Corrections. The Second Department held defendant had been deprived of his right to counsel:

Under the circumstances here, and particularly in view of the defendant’s substantiated and uncontradicted testimony that he was deprived of his constitutional right to consult with his attorney in advance of trial, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application pursuant to CPL 220.60(3) to withdraw his plea of guilty. Under the circumstances … we conclude that the interests of justice would have been better served had the defendant been permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty. * * *

This Court has recognized that “[s]imple justice . . . mandates that a plea must be knowingly and intelligently given and, if it be to any degree induced by fear or coercion, it will not be permitted to stand” … . People v Hollmond, 2020 NY Slip Op 07222, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

ASSAULT THIRD IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT SECOND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that assault third is an inclusory concurrent count of assault second:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of assault in the third degree must be vacated as an inclusory concurrent count of assault in the second degree (see CPL 300.40[3][b]; Penal Law §§ 120.05[2]; 120.00[1] …). People v Cullins, 2020 NY Slip Op 07219, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION’S JOINT REQUEST TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL EVALUATED; ONCE A DEFENDANT IS DEEMED COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, THE DECISION WHETHER TO PRESENT AN INSANITY DEFENSE IS THE DEFENDANT’S, NOT THE COURT’S, TO MAKE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the convictions, determined: (1) the trial judge should not have rejected the request by both defense counsel and the prosecutor to have the defendant’s mental health and fitness for trial evaluated; and (2) once a defendant is found competent to stand trial the decision whether to present an insanity defense is the defendant’s alone. Here defense counsel was ordered by the judge to present an insanity defense, over defendant’s objection:

… [W]hen confronted with evidence that the defendant was not taking his required medication and was not able to communicate rationally with his attorney, the Supreme Court should have granted the joint applications of the People and the defense to have the defendant examined pursuant to CPL 730.30(1) to determine his fitness to proceed … . …

… [A] defendant found competent to stand trial has the ultimate authority, even over counsel’s objection, to reject the use of a psychiatric defense … . Thus, once the Supreme Court determined the defendant to be competent to stand trial, it should not have interfered with that authority by “order[ing]” defense counsel, over the defendant’s objection, to present an insanity defense. People v Bellucci, 2020 NY Slip Op 07215, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, ,

THE “DUAL JURY” PROCEDURE USED TO TRY DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED, AND THE CO-DEFENDANT, WHO WAS ACQUITTED, ALLOWED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY TO ACT AS A SECOND PROSECUTOR; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s (Feliciano’s) murder and robbery convictions, determined the “dual jury” procedure used to try Feliciano and his co-defendant, Roberts, deprived Feliciano of a fair trial. Feliciano’s defense was he was with Roberts when Roberts committed the crimes but did not participate. Roberts’ defense was he did not participate in the crimes at all. Feliciano was convicted and Roberts was acquitted:

In reviewing Feliciano’s claim on appeal that he was entitled to a severance, we are required to consider the entire record, including, retrospectively, the full trial record … . Feliciano must demonstrate that he was unduly prejudiced by the severance and that a joint trial “substantially impair[ed defendant’s] defense” … . “[T]he level of prejudice required to override the strong public policy favoring joinder” exists “where the core of each defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other and where there is a significant danger, as both defenses are portrayed to the trial court, that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer defendant’s guilt” … . A trial before dual juries, which constitutes a modified form of severance, is to be used sparingly and is evaluated under standards for reviewing severance motions generally, as set forth above … . * * *

[Damaging] … testimony and evidence was unsolicited by the People and would never have been presented to Feliciano’s jury, but for Roberts’ cross examination. Roberts’ counsel’s pursuit of his client’s defense, contemporaneously undermined Feliciano’s. Accordingly, he effectively became a “second prosecutor” and was able to impeach … witnesses to Feliciano’s detriment in a manner that the People were unable to. Under these circumstances, a dual jury trial was improper as it did not prevent Feliciano from being prejudiced by Roberts’ antagonistic defense … . People v Feliciano, 2020 NY Slip Op 07145, First Dept 12-1-20

 

, ,

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM PROSECUTING THE DEFENDANT FOR ALLEGED SEX OFFENSES ON THE GROUND THAT, AS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAD PRESIDED OVER FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT AND THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF THE CHARGED SEX OFFENSES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined petitioner, the county district attorney, should not have been disqualified from prosecuting Jamel Brandow for sex offense charges on the ground that, as a Family Court judge, the district attorney had presided over Family Court proceedings against Brandow which also involved the alleged victim of the current charges:

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 17, a former judge “shall not act as attorney or counsellor in any action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding, which has been before him [or her] in his [or her] official character” … . Here, contrary to respondent’s determination, the underlying criminal matter was not in any way before petitioner in his former judicial capacity. Although petitioner presided over proceedings brought against Brandow in Family Court in 2008, the matters litigated in those proceedings bear no similarity to the allegations of sexual misconduct charged in the indictment … . Further, although petitioner determined that Brandow violated an order of protection issued in favor of the victim and others, the violation did not arise out of any contact between Brandow and the victim. Accordingly, as the underlying criminal matter was not previously before petitioner in his judicial capacity, Judiciary Law § 17 does not prohibit petitioner’s prosecution of the subject criminal charges … . Matter of Czajka v Koweek, 2020 NY Slip Op 07009, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

, , , , ,

UNDER THE AGUILAR-SPINELLI ANALYSIS, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S ARREST; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE 42 USC 1983, FALSE ARREST, ASSAULT AND BATTERY CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment on the 42 USC 1983, false arrest, assault and battery causes of action should not have been granted. Under the Aguilar-Spinelli analysis, there were questions of fact about the existence of probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest:

“The existence of probable cause constitutes a complete defense to a cause of action alleging false arrest, including a cause of action asserted pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 to recover damages for the deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights under color of state law that is the federal-law equivalent of a state common-law false arrest cause of action” … . “However, [w]hen an arrest is made without a warrant, as here, a presumption arises that it was unlawful, and the burden of proving justification is cast upon the defendant” … . Where the arrest was made without a prior judicial determination of probable cause, and where the arresting officer’s alleged probable cause is based on hearsay, probable cause is properly evaluated under the Aguilar-Spinelli test … . Under the Aguilar-Spinelli rule, where, as here, probable cause is predicated upon the hearsay statement of an informant, the proponent of the hearsay statement “must demonstrate that the informant is reliable and that the informant had a sufficient basis for his or her knowledge” … . Here the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to the existence of probable cause for the arrest. The existence of triable issues of fact with respect to whether the police evaluations at issue, such as the evaluation of probable cause to arrest and requisite suspicion to perform a strip search, were objectively reasonable precludes an award of summary judgment … on the ground of qualified immunity … .

“To sustain a cause of action to recover damages for assault, there must be proof of physical conduct placing the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of harmful contact” … . “To recover damages for battery, a plaintiff must prove that there was bodily contact, made with intent, and offensive in nature” … . A claim predicated on assault and battery may be based upon contact during an unlawful arrest … . Here, the defendants’ failure to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s arrest was lawful precluded an award of summary judgment dismissing the sixth cause of action, which alleged assault and battery … . Cayruth v City of Mount Vernon, 2020 NY Slip Op 07027, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

,

THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES FOR NONCITIZENS; MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE HER GUILTY PLEA, DESPITE THE FACT DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JUDGE THAT DEFENDANT SAID SHE WAS A CITIZEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department remitted the matter to allow defendant the opportunity to move to vacate her plea of guilty based upon the sentencing court’s failure to inform the defendant of the immigration consequences for noncitizens. Defense counsel had informed the court that defendant had informed him she was a citizen:

… [D]efense counsel’s statement during the plea proceeding that the defendant had informed him that she was a citizen of the United States did not absolve the court of its obligations pursuant to Peque [22 NY3d 168]. As we explained in People v Williams, “a trial court should not ask a defendant whether he or she is a United States citizen and decide whether to advise the defendant of the plea’s deportation consequence based on the defendant’s answer. Instead, a trial court should advise all defendants pleading guilty to felonies that, if they are not United States citizens, their felony guilty plea may expose them to deportation” … .

… [I]n the present case … the presentence investigation report explained that an “immigration record check” had revealed, among other things, that the defendant was not in the United States “legally.”

The defendant’s due process claim is thus properly presented on the defendant’s direct appeal, and in the absence of the warning required under Peque, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate her plea, and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter … . People v Ulanov, 2020 NY Slip Op 07108, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

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