You are here: / Criminal Law
,

MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS AND INFORMATIONS CANNOT BE CORRECTED BY AMENDMENT; RATHER A SUPERSEDING INSTRUMENT SUPPORTED BY A SWORN STATEMENT WITH THE CORRECT FACTS MUST BE FILED; THE ISSUE WAS NOT WAIVED BY DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA TO THE AMENDED INSTRUMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Term and overruling precedent from 1954, over a two-judge dissent and an additional dissent, determined the misdemeanor complaint and the information to which the complaint was converted should not have been amended to correct wrong dates. The Criminal Procedure Law does not include a provision allowing amendment of misdemeanor complaints and informations. The proper procedure is to file a superseding accusatory instrument with a sworn statement supporting the correct facts. This appellate issue was not waived by defendant’s guilty plea:

The text, structure, and legislative history of the CPL, as well as a straightforward application of our canons of statutory construction, all demonstrate that the CPL does not permit the kinds of factual amendments once countenanced by [People v Easton (307 NY 336 [1954])]. The CPL does provide its own pathway for correcting factual errors in complaints and informations, through the filing of a superseding accusatory instrument (CPL 100.50), not through a prosecutor’s amendment of facts averred by someone else. We recognize that the October 25, 2015 date in the accusatory instrument here cannot possibly be correct and that the correct date can be inferred from information outside the four corners of the accusatory instrument. However, in evaluating the sufficiency of an accusatory instrument we do not look beyond its four corners (including supporting declarations appended thereto) … . It is the People’s responsibility to obtain a sworn statement with the correct factual allegations and proceed on a superseding instrument. People v Hardy, 2020 NY Slip Op 05803, CtApp 10-15-20

 

, ,

THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT DOES NOT APPLY IN ARTICLE 8 FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDINGS; ORDER OF PROTECTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Family Court’s order of protection imposed after a finding appellant had committed a family offense, determined the finding was based upon inadmissible hearsay. The hearsay exception in Article 10 of the Family Court Act does not apply to family offense (Article 8) proceedings:

In a family offense proceeding, “[o]nly competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted in a fact-finding hearing” (Family Ct Act § 834). In child protective proceedings brought pursuant to articles 10 and 10-A of the Family Court Act, there is a statutory hearsay exception for “previous statements made by the child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect” (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi]). “[A]lthough the hearsay exception contained in Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) has been applied in the context of custody proceedings commenced pursuant to Family [Court] Act article 6 where the basis of the custody proceeding is founded on neglect or abuse such that the issues are inextricably interwoven,” section 1046(a)(vi) is inapplicable in a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 … . …

… Dhanmatie Godfrey filed a family offense petition against Zahamin Bahadeur, in which she alleged that Bahadeur committed a family offense against one of her children. The only evidence presented by Godfrey in support of the allegations in the family offense petition were the child’s inadmissible hearsay statements, as testified to by Godfrey. The Family Court erred in admitting the child’s hearsay statements into evidence because the hearsay exception set forth in Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) does not apply in family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 … . Matter of Godfrey v Bahadeur, 2020 NY Slip Op 05750, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, ,

EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, ROBBERY AND BURGLARY FIRST CONVICTIONS REDUCED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reducing defendants’ convictions, determined the evidence of physical injury was legally insufficient:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). The complainant stated that her injuries consisted of a laceration on her neck from the defendant pulling off her necklace and scratches on her wrist from the defendant pulling off her bracelets. She did not go to the hospital and testified that her neck was sore and her wrist felt a little sore and afterwards she had pain in her neck and wrist, although she did not specify when the pain began or as to its duration. The officer who responded to the scene testified that the complainant had a scratch on her neck. Under these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the complainant suffered substantial pain or impairment of her physical condition … . Accordingly, the defendant’s convictions of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree should be reduced to burglary in the second degree and robbery in the third degree, respectively, which lesser crimes were proven at trial … . People v Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 05782, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, ,

THE ELEMENT OF THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES PROOF THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO POSSESS A PISTOL OR REVOLVER IS AN EXCEPTION, NOT A PROVISO; CONVICTION VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s conviction of unlawful possession of ammunition pursuant to NYC Administrative Code 10-131[i][3], determined the language of the statute required that the People prove defendant was not authorized to possess a pistol or a revolver, which was not established by the evidence:

… [T]he language of the ammunition possession statute (Administrative Code § 10-131[i][3]) concerning authorization to possess a pistol or revolver within the City is an exception, not a proviso (Tatis, 170 AD3d at 48). Therefore, the People were required to prove, as an element of the offense, that defendant was not authorized to possess a pistol or revolver, regardless of whether defendant raised the issue in the first instance (id.). The evidence at trial did not establish that fact. Accordingly, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to vacate that conviction. People v Anonymous, 2020 NY Slip Op 05689, First Dept 10-13-20

 

BOTH A FEDERAL HOBBS ACT ROBBERY CONVICTION AND A NORTH CAROLINA BREAKING AND ENTERING CONVICTION ARE EQUIVALENT TO NEW YORK FELONIES; DEFENDANT PROPERLY SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in detailed analyses, determined a federal Hobbs Act robbery conviction, as well as a North Carolina breaking and entering conviction, constituted equivalents of New York felonies and therefore supported defendant’s status as a second felony drug offender:

As this Court held in People v Robles, (115 AD3d 420, 421 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1066 [2014]), a Hobbs Act robbery is equivalent to the crime of larceny by extortion in New York (Penal Law 155.05), and a Hobbs Act robbery does not encompass a broader range of behavior than larceny by extortion. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the intent elements of each crime require proof that a defendant intended to commit a larceny, but do not require a specific intent that defendant intended to instill fear in order to extort; it is sufficient to show that the actus reus occurred in tandem with a defendant’s intent to commit a larceny … . …

The North Carolina statute, entitled “Breaking or Entering Buildings Generally,” independently qualifies as a predicate felony offense to justify enhanced sentencing in New York because it is equivalent to third-degree burglary. The North Carolina statute provides that a person is guilty of this crime when he “breaks or enters any building with intent to commit any felony or larceny therein” (see N.C.G.S.A. § 14-54[a]). New York’s third-degree burglary statute provides that a person is guilty of a class D felony if a person “knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime” (PL 140.20). “A person . . . remains unlawfully in or upon premises when he is not licensed or privileged to do so” (PL 140.00[5]). People v Sylvester,2020 NY Slip Op 05702, First Dept 10-13-20

 

,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL CONTACT; RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM LEVEL TWO TO ONE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s risk level from two to one, determined the evidence of sexual contact was not sufficient:

… [T]he record is devoid of any evidence, much less the requisite clear and convincing evidence … , that defendant touched the victim’s “sexual or other intimate parts.” Rather, the record contains only a statement from the victim that defendant “touched her inappropriately.” An “inappropriate” touch, however, encompasses a far broader array of conduct than that classified as “sexual conduct” by section 130.00 (3). …

… [A]lthough defendant was indicted for aggravated sexual battery under Tennessee law—an offense that includes “sexual contact” as an element (see Tenn Code Ann §§ 39-13-501 [6]; 39-13-504 [a])—he was ultimately convicted only of attempted aggravated sexual battery, and it is well established that ” ‘the fact that an offender was arrested or indicted for an offense is not, by itself, evidence that the offense occurred’ ” … . People v Bryant, 2020 NY Slip Op 05646, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

WAIVER OF APPEAL OF THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL OF THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR A SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF PROBATION; SENTENCE DEEMED HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s sentence was harsh and excessive and noted a waiver of appeal for the underlying offense does not apply to an appeal of the sentence imposed for a subsequent violation of probation:

… [A]s defendant contends and the People correctly concede, even if defendant executed a valid waiver of the right to appeal at the underlying plea proceeding, it would not encompass her challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed following her violation of probation … . We agree with defendant that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. In light of defendant’s young age, minimal criminal history, and prior efforts to address her substance abuse issues, as well as the nonviolent nature of the underlying crimes and the relatively minor infractions for which she was discharged from her treatment program thereby resulting in her violation of probation, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … by reducing the sentence on each count to a determinate term of imprisonment of three years, to be followed by the two years of postrelease supervision imposed by County Court, with the sentences remaining concurrent. People v Griffin, 2020 NY Slip Op 05645, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

BURGLARY SECOND COUNT DISMISSED AS A LESSER INCLUSORY COUNT OF THE TWO BURGLARY FIRST COUNTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department dismissed the burglary second count as a lesser inclusory count of the two burglary first counts:

…[C]ount three of the indictment, charging burglary in the second degree, must be dismissed as a lesser inclusory concurrent count of counts one and two, charging burglary in the first degree (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b] …). People v Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 05643, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

,

CITIZEN INFORMANT WHO WALKED INTO THE POLICE STATION PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO JUSTIFY APPROACHING A VAN IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS SLEEPING, LEADING TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEW WITH THE INFORMANT DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police, after interviewing a citizen informant who walked into the police station, had reasonable suspicion to approach a van in which the defendant was sleeping. Thereafter the police were justified in asking the defendant to step out of the van for safety reasons and in arresting the defendant when an officer saw a handgun in defendant’s waistband. The dissent argued the informant (who identified himself to the police but was not identified to the defendant) did not provide sufficiently detailed information to justify approaching the van:

…[T]he testimony of a police officer during the suppression hearing established that a citizen informant walked into a police station at 4:30 a.m. and reported that two men had “ripped him off” during “a drug deal gone wrong.” The informant, who identified himself by name to the officer but whose identity was not disclosed to defendant, appeared to be angry and upset and did not seem to be intoxicated. The informant alleged, inter alia, that the two men were in a purple minivan at a specific address on Stevens Street in the City of Buffalo, and that “there were drugs in the vehicle” and one of the men “was holding [a] handgun in his lap.” The police officer interviewed the informant for 10 to 15 minutes, during which time the officer had an opportunity to evaluate his reliability on the basis of his appearance and demeanor … . The informant’s reliability was enhanced because he identified himself to the officer and reported that he had attempted to take part in a drug transaction, thus making a declaration against penal interest and subjecting himself to potential prosecution for his own criminal activity … . The informant also waited at the police station while officers investigated the allegations, thereby subjecting himself to “the criminal sanctions attendant upon falsely reporting information to the authorities” … . Thus, we conclude that the People established the reliability of the informant by establishing that the officer obtained information from him during a face-to-face encounter … , and that information did not constitute an anonymous tip … .

From the dissent:

… [A]lthough the majority relies on the ability of the police “to evaluate [the] reliability [of the informant]” during face-to-face contact … , the testimony of the police officer who met the informant reveals that the officer lacked sufficient information to make such an evaluation. The officer believed that the informant appeared agitated, and conceded that he did not know whether the informant was sober. The informant offered the officer no description of the men who purportedly “ripped him off” or how the alleged drug deal had gone wrong, and the officer testified that he never even asked the informant when that incident took place. Instead, the informant offered no more than the description of the outside of a vehicle … . People v Edwards, 2020 NY Slip Op 05672, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR CONCERNING THE BIAS OF A PROSPECTIVE JUROR, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant was deprived of his right to be present at a side bar concerning the bias of a prospective juror:

A … prospective juror was peremptorily excused by defendant’s counsel, however, and, during a sidebar conference at which defendant was not present, that juror was questioned “to search out [her] bias, hostility or predisposition to believe or discredit the testimony of potential witnesses” (Antommarchi, 80 NY2d at 250). Consequently, we conclude that, “absent a knowing and voluntary waiver by defendant of his right to be present at that sidebar conference, his conviction cannot stand” … . The only evidence in the record concerning a waiver consists of a conversation between the court, defendant’s counsel and codefendant’s counsel that occurred after the prospective juror was excused, in which codefendant’s counsel indicated that he had just discussed with codefendant the right to approach the bench during such conferences, and defendant’s counsel merely assented. Inasmuch as the discussion was vague and prospective, and there is no indication that defendant or defendant’s counsel were waiving defendant’s Antommarchi rights retrospectively, that conversation is insufficient to establish that defendant waived those rights concerning the questioning of the prospective juror at issue here. We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial. People v Mckenzie-Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 05653, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

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