You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

EXCLUDING A SPECTATOR FROM THE TRIAL BECAUSE HE WAS SLEEPING DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL; THE CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR IS NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined the judge’s excluding a spectator from defendant’s trial violated the defendant’s right to a public trial. The spectator, apparently a friend of the defendant, had been asleep during the trial. He was excluded solely on that ground:

While trial courts have “inherent discretionary power to exclude members of the public from the courtroom” … , that discretion “must be exercised only when unusual circumstances necessitate it” … . “In sum, ‘an affirmative act by the trial court excluding persons from the courtroom’ without lawful justification constitutes a violation of the defendant’s right to a public trial” … . “A violation of the right to an open trial is not subject to harmless error analysis and a per se rule of reversal irrespective of prejudice is the only realistic means to implement this important constitutional guarantee” … .

Here, after the first day of testimony had concluded and jurors had been dismissed for the day, the Supreme Court excluded a spectator from the courtroom for sleeping, which the court noted was “disrespectful” and “distracting to the jurors.” The court told the spectator … he was “excluded from this courtroom for the rest of this trial” and was “not to return” to the courtroom. * * *

The record demonstrates that the Supreme Court did not sufficiently consider whether less drastic measures could have addressed the spectator’s behavior, such as warning the spectator or requesting that the spectator alter his demeanor in the courtroom … . The court’s statement the next day that the spectator was no longer excluded from the courtroom was insufficient to remedy the court’s error. People v White, 2025 NY Slip Op 04193, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: A judge has to have a good reason for excluding a spectator from a trial. The fact that the spectator had slept during the trial was not enough. Exclusion of spectators deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a public trial.

, ,

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s kidnapping first degree conviction and ordering a new trial on that count, determined the trial judge should have given the jury an instruction on unlawful imprisonment second degree as a lesser included offense. Kidnapping first degree requires restraint for more than 12 hours. There was a reasonable view of the evidence which supported the restraint was less than 12 hours:

“A defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense charge upon request when (1) it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly committing the lesser offense by the same conduct and (2) there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater” … . Inasmuch as there is no dispute regarding the first prong, we turn our focus to the second. In so doing, “we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant” … . “It is only where there is no possible view of the facts by which the jury could find [the defendant guilty of] a lesser [included offense] that [a] refusal [to submit that offense] is justified” … . In light of the evidence relied upon by defendant, as summarized in our above weight of the evidence analysis, we agree with defendant that there is a reasonable view of the evidence that he committed the lesser offense by restraining the victim, but not for more than 12 hours as required to commit the greater offense. People v Akins, 2025 NY Slip Op 04122, Third Dept 7-10-25

Practice Point: Where a reasonable view of the evidence supports a lesser included offense, it is reversible error to refuse to instruct the jury on it.

 

, ,

HERE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO USE PLAINTIFF’S INDICTMENT AND PLEA TRANSCRIPT IN THEIR DEFENSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL ACTION; THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THOSE RECORDS WERE SUBJECT TO THE SEALING ORDER ISSUED BY COUNTY COURT; IF THE RECORDS WERE COURT RECORDS AND PROCURED FROM THE COURT, THE SEALING ORDER WOULD NOT EXTEND TO THEM; IF THE RECORDS WERE PROCURED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT SOURCES, THE SEALING ORDER APPLIES; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined that whether certain records associated with plaintiff’s criminal action, including the indictment and plea transcript, were “sealed” and thus not accessible by the defendants depended on where the defendants procured them. The sealing order did not extend to “court records” as opposed to records kept by the police and prosecutors:

We must … decide whether CPL 160.55 i… encompasses the content that plaintiff seeks to have excluded from trial. After plaintiff entered a guilty plea to disorderly conduct in the criminal action, County Court issued a sealing order pursuant to CPL 160.55, which applies when an action has been terminated by a conviction of certain violations, including disorderly conduct. * * *

A careful comparison of the language used in CPL 160.50 and 160.55 leads us to agree with defendants’ contention that CPL 160.55 does not extend to court records. Under CPL 160.55 (1) (c), once notified of a qualifying violation conviction, the enumerated criminal justice entities must seal “all official records and papers relating to the arrest or prosecution” in their possession. By comparison, CPL 160.50 (1) provides that, when an action has been terminated in favor of the accused, unless the court requires otherwise, “the record of [an] action or proceeding shall be sealed” and notification of such termination and sealing shall be sent by the clerk of the court to the “the commissioner of the division of criminal justice services and the heads of all appropriate police departments and other law enforcement agencies” … . Upon receipt thereof, “all official records and papers, including judgments and orders of a court but not including published court decisions or opinions or records and briefs on appeal, relating to the arrest or prosecution, including all duplicates and copies thereof, on file with the division of criminal justice services, any court, police agency, or prosecutor’s office shall be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency” (CPL 160.50 [1] [c] … . By its plain terms, CPL 160.50 seals official court records pertaining to the arrest and prosecution, whereas CPL 160.55 omits that express sealing … . * * *

We are mindful that the record does not reveal how defendants obtained copies of the indictment and combined plea/sentencing transcript. To the extent defendants obtained these documents from the official court file maintained by County Court, they would not be subject to the sealing order issued pursuant to CPL 160.55. However, if these documents were obtained from the files of “the division of criminal justice services, police agency, or prosecutor’s office” (CPL 160.55 [1] [c]), they would be subject to the sealing order.  … [P]laintiff did not waive the privilege that is afforded to these documents in the event they were obtained from one of the aforementioned law enforcement entities. Given that the record is not sufficiently developed on the issue of how these records were obtained, we must reverse so much of Supreme Court’s order as denied plaintiff’s motion in limine as it pertains to the indictment and plea/sentencing transcript and remit to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the matter. Kokoska v Joe Tahan’s Furniture Liquidation Ctrs., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04130, Third Dept 7-10-25

Practice Point: Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law section 160.55, a sealing order does not extend to court records, as opposed to records kept by law enforcement and prosecutors. Here there was a question whether the defendants procured the indictment and plea transcript from the court. If so, the sealing order did not apply to them.

 

,

A CANINE SNIFF OF A PERSON IS A SEARCH AND REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE SUBJECT HAS COMMITTED A CRIME, THEREBY TRIGGERING THE NECESSITY FOR A SEARCH WARRANT OR AN EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court and remitting the matter, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, determined probable cause to believe a crime has been committed is the proper standard for a canine sniff of a person. Here defendant was asked to step out of his vehicle. The canine put his nose in defendant’s groin/buttocks area and alerted for the presence of narcotics:

… [A] canine sniff of the body is far more intrusive than that of a vehicle exterior or common hallway, and an individual has a correspondingly greater expectation of privacy in one’s own body than in those settings. Indeed, when it comes to canine sniff searches, it would be difficult to imagine one more intrusive or involving a more significant privacy right than the one at issue here. Accordingly, we conclude that the serious “intrusion on personal privacy, security, and dignity” that accompanies a canine sniff of the body can only be justified at DeBour level 4 — namely, upon probable cause to believe that the target of the sniff search has committed a crime … .

… [G]iven the fact that County Court only evaluated the evidence under the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion, we are constrained to remit this case to that court for a determination of whether the police had probable cause to perform the canine sniff search of defendant’s body …thereby triggering the necessity of either a search warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement … .  People v Butler, 2025 NY Slip Op 04052, Third Dept 7-3-25

Practice Point: It is hard to believe the law on this topic is just now being settled. A canine sniff of a person is a search requiring probable cause to believe the subject has committed a crime, thereby triggering the necessity for a search warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.

 

, , ,

IN A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING BASED UPON AN ACT WHICH WAS NOT COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE VIEW AND PRESENCE OF THE COURT, THE CONTEMPT MOTION MUST BE PERSONALLY SERVED; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY SERVED, DEPRIVING FAMILY COURT OF JURISDICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the criminal contempt motion against father for bringing a recording device into court should have been dismissed because there was no proof father was personally served with the motion:

A finding of criminal contempt, as is pertinent here, must be supported by a showing of “[d]isorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during its sitting, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings, or to impair the respect due to its authority” (Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [1]), and proof of guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt … . “Such a contempt, committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, may be punished summarily; when not so committed, the party charged must be notified of the accusation, and have a reasonable time to make a defense” (Judiciary Law § 751 [1] …). To this end, a “criminal contempt proceeding requires personal service on the contemnor” … . “A court lacks personal jurisdiction over a respondent who is not properly served with process” and, “[w]hen the requirements for service of process have not been met, it is irrelevant that the respondent may have actually received the documents, because notice received by means other than those authorized by statute does not bring a respondent within the jurisdiction of the court” … .

Family Court acknowledged in its written order that it was unable to summarily hold the father in contempt, as the only direct evidence of his possession of a prohibited recording device was discovered outside of the courtroom by court officers who were not immediately available to testify. As such, personal service of the motion charging the father with contempt was required. Nothing in the record reflects that such service was effectuated. We note that, to the extent that the court’s notice of motion indicates that it was mailed to the father to a Pennsylvania address, there is similarly no affidavit of service/mailing and no receipt of mailing in the record. Matter of Ruoyao P. (Zhechen P.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04065, Third Dept 7-3-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the procedural requirements for a motion charging criminal contempt for an act which was not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court. The motion must be personally served in accordance with the CPLR. Failure of proper service deprives the court of jurisdiction.

 

, ,

THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD REDACT FROM THE PRESENTENCE REPORT ANY REFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s presentence report should have been redacted to remove reference to criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted:

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in failing to redact improper statements from the presentence report (PSR) because they reference criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted … . Specifically, we agree with defendant that the inclusion in the PSR of statements regarding alleged sexual offenses by defendant involving another child, of which he was acquitted, “was inappropriate and inflammatory” … . We therefore direct County Court to redact the sentence on page 10 of the PSR referring to a statement by the victim “that there could be another victim . . . who was inappropriately touched by [defendant]”; the quotation on page 10 from an investigator stating that defendant ” ‘was having sexual intercourse with another underage female as well. High risk for children’ “; and the sentence on page 12 referring to a disclosure “that [defendant] has been sexually assaulting [the other victim] since she was nine years old” from all copies of defendant’s PSR.  People v Wilmet, 2025 NY Slip Op 03901, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: A presentence report should not include any references to criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted.​

 

 

, ,

THE POLICE SUSPECTED DEFENDANT HAD SPECIFIC WEAPONS IN A SPECIFIC VEHICLE; AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP, THE POLICE SEARCHED THE CAR AND FOUND A WEAPON; LATER THEY SEARCHED THE CAR AGAIN AND FOUND A SECOND WEAPON; ONLY AFTER THE SEARCHES DID THEY START TO FILL OUT THE INVENTORY SEARCH FORM; THIS WAS NOT A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH; THE WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the weapons seized from defendant’s vehicle after a traffic stop should have been suppressed. The police were looking for specific weapons in a specific car at the time of the search. Therefore the search could not be considered a valid inventory search:

… [T]he record reveals that the purported inventory search was actually a pretext to search for contraband. At the suppression hearing, the testimony and body-worn camera footage established that one of the officers who stopped defendant’s vehicle identified him and testified that defendant had, earlier that day, been identified as someone likely to be in possession of a weapon. Following the traffic stop and while defendant was being detained pursuant to an outstanding arrest warrant, two other officers arrived on the scene. One of the arriving officers identified the vehicle defendant was driving as one that the police thought defendant would be using and would be keeping a weapon in. The other arriving officer promptly began searching the front passenger area of the vehicle; he opened the glove box and found a weapon, prompting a police officer to observe “oh, there it is.” At that point, another officer said “let’s check for the second one,” and shortly thereafter a second weapon was found in the same spot, precisely as predicted by that officer. * * *

Our conclusion is not based merely on the fact that, in conducting the first search, the “officers knew that contraband might be recovered” from the vehicle … . Rather, the evidence at the suppression hearing demonstrated that the officers’ purpose in conducting the first search was to find specific weapons in a specific vehicle possessed by a specific person, i.e., defendant. We also note that the officers did not begin the second search until about ten minutes after the weapons were discovered, and it was only at that time that an officer began filling out an inventory search form. The facts that the inventory search form was not made contemporaneously with the first search, as required by Buffalo Police Department policy, and that it was incomplete to the extent it failed to note, as required, obvious damage to the vehicle, merely underscores and corroborates our conclusion that the first search of the vehicle was pretextual. People v Cunningham, 2025 NY Slip Op 03890, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Here the fact that the police did not start filling out the inventory-search form until after two  searches of the vehicle had turned up weapons demonstrated the attempt to color the warrantless search as an inventory search was a ruse.

 

, , , , ,

THE SORA HEARING JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE, INCREASING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK LEVEL, BASED ON INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) OR RAISED BY THE PEOPLE AT THE HEARING; TO DO SO VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have increased defendant’s SORA risk-level based upon information which was not included in the risk assessment instrument (RAI) or raised by the People at the SORA hearing:

“The due process guarantees in the United States and New York Constitutions require that a defendant be afforded notice of the hearing to determine [their] risk level pursuant to SORA and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the [RAI]” … . It is therefore improper for a court to depart from the presumptive risk level based on a ground for departure that has never been raised (see id.). Here, because defendant’s employment was not presented as a basis for departure in the RAI or by the People at the hearing, defendant was not afforded notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to it … . We therefore reverse the order, vacate defendant’s risk level determination, and remit the matter to County Court for a new risk level determination and, if necessary, a new hearing in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3) and defendant’s due process rights … . People v Lincoln, 2025 NY Slip Op 03930, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: A defendant is entitled to notice of all the evidence which the court will rely for a SORA risk-level assessment such that the defendant has an opportunity to respond.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH A REVIEW OF POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS BY A PANEL OF SENIOR PROSECUTORS IN RESPONSE TO A DEFENDANT’S DISCOVERY DEMAND IS NOT PERMITTED, THE REMEDY FOR SUCH A REVIEW IS NOT GRANTING DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION; RATHER THE MATTER IS REMITTED FOR A REVIEW OF THE RECORDS BY THE TRIAL JUDGE AND A FINDING WHETHER THE PEOPLE EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE; IF NOT, DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, held that the trial judge should review the police disciplinary records, which had been reviewed by a panel of senior prosecutors before they were provided to the defense, to determine if any relevant records were improperly withheld. If the People did not exercise due diligence, the certificate of compliance could be illusory and defendant might be entitled to a speedy-trial dismissal. The court noted that prior caselaw has ruled that the review of police disciplinary records by a panel of senior prosecutors is not permitted:

According to defendant, reversal is required because, as in People v Sumler (228 AD3d 1350, 1354 [4th Dept 2024]) and People v Rojas-Aponte (224 AD3d 1264, 1266 [4th Dept 2024]), the People used a screening panel of senior prosecutors to determine which police disciplinary records were related to the subject matter of the case, i.e., subject to discovery as impeachment material under CPL 245.20 (1) (k), and which police disciplinary matters did not relate to the subject matter of the case and thus not subject to automatic discovery. Although the People’s use of a screening panel in this case is not permitted under our prior case law, we do not agree with defendant that he is necessarily entitled to dismissal under CPL 30.30.

Instead, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for the court to determine whether the People withheld any police disciplinary records that relate to the subject matter of the case. If the court determines that there were disciplinary records subject to disclosure that were not turned over to the defense in a timely manner, then the court must determine whether the People exercised due diligence in locating and disclosing those records … . People v Sanders, 2025 NY Slip Op 03884, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: A review by senior prosecutors to determine whether police disciplinary records should be provided to the defense is not permitted.

Practice Point: Where, as here, that review process was used, the remedy is remitting the matter for a review of the records by the trial judge and a finding whether the People exercised due diligence.

 

HERE THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF THE COUNT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (FOURT DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying the judgment of conviction, noted that the murder second degree counts must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the count of murder in the first degree. People v Dean, 2025 NY Slip Op 03878, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

 

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