You are here: / Criminal Law
,

PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People’s request for an upward department in this SORA risk assessment proceeding should not have been granted:

The Supreme Court should not have granted the People’s request for an upward departure. “A departure from the presumptive risk level is generally the exception, not the rule. Where the People seek an upward departure, they must identify an aggravating factor that tends to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines, and prove the facts in support of the aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence” … . If the People do not satisfy these two requirements, “the court does not have the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level” … .

Here, the People failed to establish that the defendant’s conduct was so brutal, heinous, extreme, or depraved as to amount to an aggravating factor that tends to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines … . People v Murray, 2020 NY Slip Op 03554, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT’S DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION TO MODIFY HIS SORA RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING VIOLATED THE CORRECTION LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to hold a hearing on defendant’s petition to modify his risk level classification violated Correction Law 168-o(4):

… [T]he defendant moved pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(2) for a downward modification of his risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act … . The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s petition without holding a hearing. We reverse.

Since the Supreme Court failed to conduct a hearing on the defendant’s petition, as set forth in Correction Law § 168-o(4), we reverse the order and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and, thereafter, a new determination of the defendant’s petition … . People v Banuchi, 2020 NY Slip Op 03553, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

, ,

TRIAL JUDGE ASSUMED THE ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR AND ELICITED CRUCIAL IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge assumed the role of the prosecutor in eliciting crucial identification testimony:

“While neither the nature of our adversary system nor the constitutional requirement of a fair trial preclude a trial court from assuming an active role in the truth-seeking process,’ the court’s discretion in this area is not unfettered” … . The principle restraining the court’s discretion is that a trial judge’s “function is to protect the record, not to make it” … . Accordingly, while a trial judge may intervene in a trial to clarify confusing testimony and facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial, the court may not take on “the function or appearance of an advocate” … .

Here, the record demonstrates that after the two complainants, in response to questions by the prosecutor, were unable to positively identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery, the Supreme Court improperly assumed the appearance or the function of an advocate by questioning the complainants until it elicited a positive in-court identification of the defendant from each of them … . Under these circumstances, the court’s decision to elicit such testimony was an improper exercise of discretion and deprived the defendant of a fair trial. People v Mitchell, 2020 NY Slip Op 03541, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

,

THE MAJORITY HELD THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT OCCURRED CLOSE IN TIME TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST ON THE STREET AND WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BACKPACK WAS WITHIN THE GRABBABLE AREA AND NO PROOF OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the warrantless search of defendant’s backpack occurred close in time to the arrest and was justified by exigent circumstances. The dissent argued there was no evidence the backpack was within the grabbable area of the defendant and no evidence there were exigent circumstances. Defendant had fallen off his bicycle after he was stopped by the police, the complainant had identified the defendant at the scene, and there were five or six officers around the defendant at the time of the search of the backpack:

According to the testimony adduced at the suppression hearing, after being chased by the police, the defendant fell off his bicycle onto the street. When the complainant arrived one minute later and identified the defendant, the defendant was standing up and had not yet been handcuffed. Immediately after the complainant’s identification, the defendant was placed under arrest. Approximately two minutes after the defendant’s arrest, the police searched the subject backpack which was “on the street, at the location of the arrest.” These facts show that the arrest and search of the backpack were for all practical purposes conducted at the same time and in the same place … . Additionally, at the time of the arrest, the backpack, which was “on the street, at the location of the arrest,” could have been accessed by the defendant and had not yet been reduced to the exclusive control of the police.

Additionally, the circumstances support a reasonable belief that the search of the backpack was necessary to ensure the safety of the arresting officers and the public. The police responded to and arrested the defendant for a burglary, a violent crime. In addition, the defendant was not cooperative with the police. Indeed, the defendant was arrested at the conclusion of a police chase, following his flight from the police on a bicycle. Moreover, the setting of the defendant’s arrest and search of the backpack was a public street. These circumstances gave rise to objective and legitimate reasons for the search of the backpack … . People v Mabry, 2020 NY Slip Op 03540, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

,

THE SENTENCE FOR KIDNAPPING MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCE FOR FELONY MURDER; MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY BROUGHT PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.20 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the judge should have analyzed the motion to vacate the conviction under Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.20, as well as 440.10; (2) the sentence for kidnapping should be concurrent with the sentence for felony murder; and (3) the judge failed to address whether the running of the kidnapping sentence consecutively to the other murder convictions violated defendant’s rights to equal protection. Matter remitted for consideration of the equal-protection argument:

The Supreme Court erred in construing the defendant’s motion as one solely pursuant to CPL 440.10. Rather, the motion also sought resentencing on the basis that the kidnapping sentence “was unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law” (CPL 440.20[1]) because it should have been made to run concurrently with the felony murder conviction under count three of the indictment, and it should have been made to run concurrently with all of the murder convictions based on his rights to equal protection. That branch of the motion was properly made pursuant to CPL 440.20 (see CPL 440.20[4]). …

… [T]he imposition of consecutive sentences for the kidnapping conviction under count four of the indictment and the felony murder conviction under count three of the indictment was unlawful, since the kidnapping … , of which the defendant was convicted under count four of the indictment, also constituted the underlying felony in his murder conviction under count three of the indictment, thereby constituting a “material element” of that crime (Penal Law § 70.25[2] …). …

The Supreme Court failed to address the only remaining issue raised by the defendant on this appeal—that the running of the sentence on the kidnapping conviction consecutively to the sentences on the other murder convictions violated his rights to equal protection. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination of that issue. People v Khan, 2020 NY Slip Op 03537, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY ABOUT THE REASONS FOR A SITTING JUROR’S ABSENCE BEFORE SUBSTITUTING AN ALTERNATE JUROR; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial judge did not make an adequate inquiry about a sitting juror’s absence before substituting an alternate juror for the sitting juror (Juror Number 9). The defendant had moved for a mistrial on that ground:

… [T]he trial court failed to conduct the requisite “reasonably thorough inquiry” before substituting Alternate Number 1 for Juror Number 9 (see CPL 270.35 [2] [a]). When it ordered the substitution, the court had merely stated its “belie[f]” that Juror Number 9 had an “appointment for a family member,” and incorrectly claimed that Juror Number 9 had stated during voir dire that she had a medical appointment for her son in Rochester. Not only did the court provide only limited — and inaccurate — reasons to support a finding of unavailability, there is nothing on the record reflecting that it made any inquiry into Juror Number 9’s whereabouts or likelihood of appearing prior to ordering the substitution of Juror Number 9 with Alternate Number 1. On this record, the court failed to satisfy the requirement that a trial court conduct a “reasonably thorough inquiry” to ensure that its substitution determination is adequately informed … . People v Lang, 2020 NY Slip Op 03487, CtApp 6-23-20

 

DEFENDANT WAS ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER AND SENTENCED TO 60 DAYS IN JAIL AND FIVE YEARS PROBATION FOR STEALING A BREAKFAST SANDWICH FROM A RESTAURANT; EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THE SENTENCE WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department upheld the defendant’s sentence as a youthful offender to 60 days in jail and five years probation. Defendant stole a breakfast sandwich from a restaurant after throwing a banana at an employee, jumping over the counter, saying he had gun, and leaving the restaurant with the sandwich. This decision is significant because of the extensive dissent arguing the sentence was too harsh. People v Guilermo P., 2020 NY Slip Op 03464, First Dept 6-18-20

 

,

PETITIONER SOUGHT A REDUCTION OF HIS 1996 LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION BUT COUNTY COURT DENIED THE PETITION WITHOUT REQUESTING AN UPDATED RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF SEX OFFENDERS IN VIOLATION OF THE CORRECTION LAW; ORDER REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court’s failure to request an updated recommendation from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders violated the Correction Law. Petitioner was classified a level three sex offender in 1996 and filed a petition to reduce his classification to level one:

The Correction Law requires that, upon receipt of such petition to modify a sex offender’s level of notification, “the court shall forward a copy of the petition to the [B]oard and request an updated recommendation pertaining to the sex offender” (Correction Law § 168-o [4]). Upon such a request, the Board must provide an updated recommendation … . Generally, only “[a]fter reviewing the recommendation received from the [B]oard and any relevant materials and evidence” may the court grant or deny the petition for modification … .

Notwithstanding these statutory mandates, the record reflects that County Court failed to comply with them. The parties acknowledged at oral argument that an updated recommendation from the Board was not requested. Furthermore, the court did not review an updated recommendation before denying defendant’s petition. Given that these procedural requirements of Correction Law § 168-o (4) were not met, the order must be reversed … . People v Kaminski, 2020 NY Slip Op 03431, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court should have granted the application for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in this juvenile delinquency proceeding:

” The Family Court has broad discretion in determining whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal'” … . Factors that are relevant to a court’s discretionary determination of whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal include a respondent’s criminal and disciplinary history, history of drug or alcohol use, academic and school attendance record, association with gang activity, acceptance of responsibility for his or her actions, the nature of the underlying incident, recommendations made in a probation or mental health report, the degree to which the respondent’s parent or guardian is involved in the respondent’s home and academic life, and the ability of the parent or guardian to provide adequate supervision … .

Here, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s application pursuant to Family Court Act § 315.3 for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. Under the circumstances here, including the fact that this proceeding constituted the appellant’s first contact with the court system, he took responsibility for his actions and expressed remorse, he voluntarily participated in counseling during the pendency of the proceeding, and he maintained a strong academic and school attendance record, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal was warranted … . Matter of Maximo M., 2020 NY Slip Op 03428, Second Dept 6-17-20

 

,

WARRANTLESS MANUAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S IPAD AT JFK AIRPORT PROPER; CRITERIA FOR SEARCHES OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES AT BORDERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s iPad was properly searched by a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent at JFK airport after defendant, an airline pilot, had flown from Montreal to JFK.  Based upon an investigation in Texas, DHS believed defendant may have had child pornography on his iPad. Defendant was asked to provide the password after he was told the iPad would be seized if he did not provide the password. Defendant provided the password and child pornography was found:

Because “[t]he Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border,” and “the expectation of privacy is less at the border than it is in the interior”… , border searches are generally deemed reasonable “simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border” … . Thus, “[r]outine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant” … . However, “highly intrusive searches” may require reasonable suspicion in light of the significance of the individual “dignity and privacy interests” infringed … .

While federal circuit courts are split as to whether reasonable suspicion or something less than that is required to justify a manual search of an electronic device for contraband at the border, no court has required a warrant or probable cause for either a manual or forensic search of an electronic device for contraband at the border … . Even assuming reasonable suspicion was required, here, the DHS Agents possessed reasonable suspicion to search the defendant’s iPad for child pornography … . …

Further, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the defendant was not coerced into entering the password to unlock his iPad, in violation of his right against self-incrimination, his right to due process, or CPL 60.45. The defendant, who was told that he was free to leave, was not in custody when he was asked to enter the password … . The fact that the defendant’s iPad would be detained if he did not enter the password did not mean that he was “subjected to the coercive atmosphere of a custodial confinement”… . Further, since the DHS Agents had reasonable suspicion that contraband could be found on the iPad, the Agents could perform a forensic search of the iPad without a warrant … . People v Perkins, 2020 NY Slip Op 03425, Second Dept 6-17-20

 

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