You are here: / Criminal Law

STEP ONE OF DEFENDANT’S BATSON CHALLENGE PROPERLY REJECTED AS VAGUE AND CONCLUSORY; THERE WAS NO CONCEPCION BARRIER TO AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S STEP-ONE RULING; THE REQUEST FOR THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s step one Batson challenge was properly rejected as a vague and conclusory assertion that did not create a so-called Concepcion problem. The dissent argued the scenario presented a classic Concepcion problem. The court noted that the cross-racial identification jury instruction should have been given but found the error harmless:

… [D]efense counsel stated that the prospective juror in question was the “only black juror” who had not already been dismissed for cause and there was “no indication” that the juror would be “anything other than fair and impartial to both sides.” After considering defendant’s argument at step one, the court observed that defendant had failed to demonstrate a discriminatory pattern of strikes and denied his application without prompting the prosecutor to provide a race-neutral reason at step two … . Insofar as the court based its reasoning on the erroneous notion that a discriminatory pattern of strikes must be shown, that reasoning was flawed … . Nevertheless, because defendant failed to establish a prima facie case at step one, the court properly denied his application without further inquiry … .

Our dissenting colleague concludes that we have a Concepcion problem (see generally People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]), but we respectfully disagree. Whether a defendant has demonstrated a discriminatory pattern of peremptory strikes goes to the issue of whether that defendant has established a prima facie case at step one of the Batson inquiry (see generally Bolling, 79 NY2d at 324). Because the court relied on that ground in denying the application, Concepcion does not preclude us from affirming the judgment on the same ground, i.e., that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case at step one … . …

Where, as here, “a witness’s identification of the defendant is at issue, and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, a trial court is required to give, upon request, during final instructions, a jury charge on the cross-race effect” … . People v Boyd, 2020 NY Slip Op 03342, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, ,

IT MAY HAVE BEEN ERROR TO ALLOW THE VICTIM TO TESTIFY ACCOMPANIED BY A DOG, BUT THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED; ALTHOUGH THE PROSECUTOR MADE AN IMPROPER COMMENT IT DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL; PROSECUTORS ADMONISHED THAT THEIR ROLE IS TO ENSURE JUSTICE IS DONE, NOT SIMPLY SEEK CONVICTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, noted that allowing the adult victim to testify accompanied by a dog may have been an error but was unpreserved. The court also found that a remark made by the prosecutor was improper (but not reversible error) and took the opportunity to address prosecutorial misconduct generally:

We conclude that defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion when it permitted the adult victim to testify while accompanied by a dog is unpreserved because defendant did not object to that arrangement … . … Even assuming, arguendo, that defense counsel erred in not objecting to the court’s decision to let the victim testify while accompanied by a dog … , we conclude that the failure to object did not amount to ineffective assistance … .

… [I]t was improper for the prosecutor on summation to characterize defense counsel’s summation as evincing “a Brock Turner mentality”—inflaming the passions of the jury by specifically referring to a recent sexual assault case of nationwide notoriety that involved allegations similar to those made against defendant … .

… [W]e … take this opportunity to remind the People that ” [i]t is not enough for [a prosecutor] to be intent on the prosecution of [the] case. Granted that [the prosecutor’s] paramount obligation is to the public, [he or she] must never lose sight of the fact that a defendant, as an integral member of the body politic, is entitled to a full measure of fairness. Put another way, [the prosecutor’s] mission is not so much to convict as it is to achieve a just result’ ” … . To that end, we emphasize that “[p]rosecutors play a distinctive role in the search for truth in criminal cases. As public officers they are charged not simply with seeking convictions but also with ensuring that justice is done. This role gives rise to special responsibilities—constitutional, statutory, ethical, personal—to safeguard the integrity of criminal proceedings and fairness in the criminal process” … . People v Carlson, 2020 NY Slip Op 03336, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

,

CONSECUTIVE PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION VIOLATED THE PENAL LAW; ERROR DID NOT NEED TO BE PRESERVED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that consecutive periods of postrelease supervision violated the Penal Law and the issue did not need to be preserved:

County Court erred in imposing consecutive periods of postrelease supervision in violation of Penal Law § 70.45 (5) (c) … . Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, the lack of preservation “is of no moment, inasmuch as we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand” … . We therefore modify the judgment by directing that the periods of postrelease supervision imposed shall run concurrently. People v Hyde, 2020 NY Slip Op 03319, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, ,

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND MENACING A POLICE OFFICER CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed two of defendant’s convictions as against the weight of the evidence.  Defendant was charged with reckless endangerment first degree and menacing a police officer. It was alleged defendant fired a weapon during a foot chase. The two officers heard a gunshot but no bullet or casing was found:

… [T]he jury would have had to resort to sheer speculation to find that defendant displayed or fired a weapon, much less that he fired a weapon intentionally. The officers’ testimony that they “heard” a gunshot from some distance away does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, for purposes of the menacing charge, that defendant visually displayed the weapon that discharged the shot. Nor does such testimony prove beyond a reasonable doubt, for purposes of the reckless endangerment charge, that the shot was fired toward the officers and thereby created a grave risk of death to them. Indeed, the second officer’s testimony that he “believed” that defendant had shot at the officers is speculative and is contradicted by his contemporaneous statement that the gun might have discharged accidentally. People v Thomas, 2020 NY Slip Op 03318, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

ALTHOUGH THE PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS WAS AUTHORIZED AND LEGAL, THE APPELLATE DIVISION EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION TO FIND DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER AND REDUCED HIS SENTENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, exercising its discretion, determined, although authorized and legal, defendant should not have been sentenced as a persistent felony offender. The Fourth Department reduced his sentence. The court noted that defendant had been offered a much shorter sentence as part of a plea bargain:

Even where the sentencing court does not err as a matter of law in adjudicating a defendant to be a persistent felony offender, “[t]he Appellate Division, in its own discretion, may conclude that a persistent felony offender sentence is too harsh or otherwise improvident” … . “A determination by the Appellate Division to vacate a harsh or severe persistent felony offender finding is authorized by CPL 470.20 (6), which grants the Appellate Division discretion to modify sentences in the interest of justice without deference to the sentencing court” … . …

Despite defendant’s frequent involvement with law enforcement, he has only two prior felony convictions: one in 1981 for burglary in the second degree and one in 2002 for driving while intoxicated. Moreover, a sentence of 20 years to life is a particularly harsh penalty in light of the People’s final pretrial plea offer of 6 to 9 years’ incarceration. Thus, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, we modify the judgment by vacating the finding that defendant is a persistent felony offender and we hereby modify the sentences imposed and sentence defendant as a second felony offender by reducing the sentence imposed for arson in the third degree under count one of the indictment to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 3 to 6 years and reducing the sentences imposed for menacing a police officer or peace officer under counts two, four, five, and seven of the indictment to determinate terms of incarceration of 7 years followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision. People v Garno, 2020 NY Slip Op 03311, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN WHY HE WANTED TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, remitting the matter to Supreme Court to allow defendant to explain his desire to withdraw his plea, determined the sentencing court should not have prevented defendant from giving his reasons:

The court convened for sentencing, at which time defense counsel stated that defendant wanted to withdraw the plea, explaining that defendant had done his own legal research and determined that the appeal waiver encompassed issues that he wanted to raise on appeal. Defense counsel asked to be relieved due to an unspecified conflict of interest. Defense counsel, speaking in hypothetical terms, argued that withdrawal of the plea may be justified if defendant did not receive meaningful representation. The court questioned defendant directly. Defendant confirmed that he wanted to withdraw his plea. The prosecutor then asked the court to inquire into defendant’s grounds for the motion. Defense counsel objected, and the court ruled in defense counsel’s favor, apparently on the ground that such questioning might impermissibly intrude on privileged conversations. “[T]hat’s something you’d have to talk to a lawyer about,” the court explained, “[b]ut I’m going to deny that request.” The court added that defendant had executed a written appeal waiver. Defendant began to explain why he had executed the waiver, but the court stopped him from doing so, stating, “It’s not your turn to talk right now.” …

Although we agree with our dissenting colleagues that defense counsel did not take a position adverse to defendant, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court erroneously deprived defendant of a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions in support of his motion to withdraw the plea … . People v Ramos, 2020 NY Slip Op 03364, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SECURE THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHO WOULD TESTIFY THAT HER BOYFRIEND, WHO USED TO BE THE BOYFRIEND OF THE MURDER VICTIM, CONFESSED TO KILLING THE VICTIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his murder conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should have been granted. Defendant demonstrated that a witness was willing to testify that her boyfriend had confessed to the murder. When the witness did not show up to testify, defense counsel did not attempt to secure her attendance:

… [A]t the time of the trial, defense counsel explicitly informed the court, on the record, that his strategy was to call the witness and present her exculpatory testimony. In this regard, defense counsel stated, “[t]here’s one other issue that may or may not come up . . . [that has] to do with [the witness]. [The witness] had a conversation with her then-boyfriend . . . who had been the boyfriend of [the victim] where [the boyfriend] made a tape recording of his voice, identifying his name, his date of birth and his social security number, and indicated there that he killed [the victim]. His words were I killed the bitch. I killed the bitch. I killed the bitch.’ And that is the substance of a police report that I received from [the prosecutor].” When the court asked how defense counsel intended to introduce this testimony, he responded, “[w]ell, I intend to call [the witness], should she appear in court. She was subpoenaed. She appeared on Thursday pursuant to the subpoena as well and told me this information for the first time. I don’t know whether she’s going to be here when we need to call her, which is why I thought maybe we’d wait and see if she showed up and not take the Court’s time to do extra research on this issue. But since you’ve asked me to bring up any possible issues, I would put her on the witness stand and make an offer of proof to the Court and attempt to prove her reliability of the information that she’s giving under the Settles case relating to a statement against [the boyfriend’s] penal interest.” When the court then asked whether “[the witness’s] testimony would relate to this particular homicide,” defense counsel responded, “Oh yes. Yes.” Nevertheless, and consistent with defense counsel’s representation that he would pursue the testimony only if the witness appeared as directed, defense counsel took no further action to secure the witness’s presence when she did not appear … . We agree with defendant that the failure to secure the witness’s attendance was deficient conduct and that the record discloses no tactical reason for defense counsel’s actions … . People v Borcyk, 2020 NY Slip Op 03359, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, , ,

THE SECTION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RELIED ON BY THE POLICE FOR THE VEHICLE STOP MAY NOT HAVE BEEN APPLICABLE AND THE STOP THEREFORE MAY HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS ON THAT GROUND CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; PLEA VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the initial stop of the vehicle in which defendant attempted to flee from a public housing complex parking area may not have been justified and the defense attorney was ineffective for failing to move to suppress on that ground. The vehicle stop was based on the alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1211 (unsafe backing). But the statute does not apply to parking areas as opposed to parking lots. The Fourth Department held the application of the law to a parking area would not constitute an objectively reasonable mistake of law which could justify the stop. On the record before it, however, the Fourth Department could not determine whether the area in question met the statutory definition of a parking lot:

… [D]efendant had a valid argument that the initial vehicle stop was unlawful because the parking area in which the police purportedly observed unsafe backing was not a “parking lot” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 129-b … . …

Defendant also had a valid argument that the initial vehicle stop could not be justified due to the police officers’ objectively reasonable, yet mistaken, belief that the parking area was a “parking lot” as defined by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 129-b … ….

Although contentions that defense counsel was ineffective survive only to the extent that “the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that . . . defendant entered the plea because of [defense counsel’s] allegedly poor performance” … , the court’s consideration of the aforementioned arguments here would likely have resulted in suppression of the handgun and, concomitantly, dismissal of some or all of the indictment … . We therefore conclude that defendant demonstrated that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error[], [defendant] would not have pleaded guilty” … . People v Allen, 2020 NY Slip Op 03295, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, , , ,

COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DIOCESE OF BUFFALO ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A PRIEST DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief against the Diocese of Buffalo NY stemming from alleged sexual abuse by a priest did not state a cause of action for public nuisance based on common law and Penal Law 240.45 (criminal nuisance). The court noted that a nuisance suit in this context would conflict or compete with the classification system under the Sex Offender Registration Act and, to the extent plaintiff seeks damages, a suit pursuant to the Child Victims Act is available:

“Conduct does not become a public nuisance merely because it interferes with . . . a large number of persons. There must be some interference with a public right. A public right is one common to all members of the general public. It is collective in nature and not like the individual right that everyone has not to be assaulted or defamed or defrauded or negligently injured” … . Here, the complaint alleges the infringement of, at most, a common right of a particular subset of the community, i.e., a group of Roman Catholic parishioners in the area of the Diocese who attended or were active in the priest’s parishes. The complaint does not allege that the general public was exposed to the priest’s conduct, nor does it otherwise allege interference with a collective right belonging to all members of the public … . …

Penal Law § 240.45 does not imply a private right of action under the circumstances presented here. “Where a penal statute does not expressly confer a private right of action on individuals pursuing civil relief, recovery under such a statute may be had only if a private right of action may fairly be implied’ ” … . Three essential factors are considered in determining whether a private right of action may fairly be implied: “(1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme” … . Golden v The Diocese of Buffalo, NY, 2020 NY Slip Op 03354, Fourth Dept, 6-12-20

 

,

COCAINE IS NOT DANGEROUS CONTRABAND WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND IN THE FIRST DEGREE; CONVICTION REDUCED TO PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND IN THE SECOND DEGREE (PROHIBITING ‘CONTRABAND,’ AS OPPOSED TO ‘DANGEROUS CONTRABAND’) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, over a two-justice concurrence and a dissent, determined cocaine does not meet the statutory definition of dangerous contraband within the meaning of the offense of promoting prison contraband in the first degree. The defendant’s conviction, based upon the possession of three baggies of cocaine, was reduced to promoting prison contraband in the second degree:

“A person is guilty of promoting prison contraband in the first degree when . . . [that person] knowingly and unlawfully introduces any dangerous contraband into a detention facility” (Penal Law § 205.25 [1]). “Dangerous contraband” is defined as any contraband that is “capable of such use as may endanger the safety or security of a detention facility or any person therein” (§ 205.00 [4]). “[T]he test for determining whether an item is dangerous contraband is whether its particular characteristics are such that there is a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility’s institutional safety or security” … . ” [W]eapons, tools, explosives and similar articles likely to facilitate escape or cause disorder, damage or physical injury are examples of dangerous contraband,’ ” whereas an ” alcoholic beverage is an example of [ordinary] contraband’ ” … . Drugs, unlike weapons, are not inherently dangerous, and thus general penological concerns about the drug possessed that “are not addressed to the specific use and effects of the particular drug are insufficient to meet the definition of dangerous contraband” … . * * *

Central to our dissenting colleague’s analysis is a distinction between narcotic and non-narcotic controlled substances. The unstated premise is that cocaine is classified as a narcotic because it is inherently dangerous. We respectfully disagree with that premise. Cocaine may be unhealthy, but it is not a narcotic, at least not from a scientific, medical, or pharmacological viewpoint … . People v Simmons, 2020 NY Slip Op 03350, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

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