You are here: / Criminal Law
,

REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE A VIDEO OF THE INTERROGATION OF DEFENDANT SHOWING HIM REMAINING SILENT WHILE THE POLICE RECOUNTED THE CASE AGAINST HIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction because a video of his interrogation, which showed him remaining silent while the police recounted the case against him, was admitted into evidence:

“It is a well-established principle of state evidentiary law that evidence of a defendant’s pretrial silence is generally inadmissible” … . There are many reasons why an individual may choose not to speak to the police; however, there is a substantial risk that jurors might construe such silence as an admission and draw an unwarranted inference of guilt … . Here, the admitted video consists of the police recounting their case against defendant, including reading his texts aloud and being met largely, if not completely, with silence. Defendant is shown slouching, with an ankle shackle securing him to the chair, and he is dressed in a hooded sweatshirt with oversized sweatpants worn in a manner so as to expose his underwear. His attitude appears to be dismissive and, at one point, he laughs in response to police questioning. Throughout the video, defendant makes no inculpatory statements. Both detectives who appear in the video were presumably available to testify and, in fact, one of them did testify.

Allowing evidence of defendant’s selective silence was highly prejudicial because there was a significant risk that the jurors deemed defendant’s failure to answer the police officer’s questions to be an admission of guilt … . Given its highly prejudicial nature and that it contained little to no probative value, we agree with defendant that County Court erred in allowing the redacted video to be shown to the jury … . This error was compounded by the People’s use of the video during summation, wherein the prosecutor highlighted and commented upon defendant’s silence during the police interrogation. In doing this, the People improperly shifted the burden to defendant … . People v Chapman, 2020 NY Slip Op 02330, Third Dept 4-23-20

 

,

MISTRIAL BASED UPON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WAS PROPERLY GRANTED WITH DEFENDANT’S CONSENT; DOUBLE JEOPARDY DID NOT ATTACH (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the mistrial, based upon defense counsel’s conflicts of interest (representation of prosecution witnesses) was properly granted with defendant’s consent. Therefore double jeopardy did not attach:

Upon learning of defense counsel’s potential conflicts of interest, County Court engaged in a lengthy colloquy with the parties, during which they explored — to no avail — ways to avoid the conflict, including the possibility of the Special Prosecutor foregoing testimony from the witnesses. The court explained the ramifications of the conflict to defendant more than once, emphasizing that defense counsel’s ethical obligations to his prior clients — the intended prosecution witnesses — could “impact his ability to cross-examine them as vigorously or as effectively or as thoroughly as he otherwise would.” Following this explanation, County Court presented defendant with the choice to waive any conflict and proceed with his assigned counsel or request the assignment of new counsel, thereby necessitating a mistrial and a retrial. Although defendant asserted that he did not “want to do this again,” he also expressed discomfort with being at a disadvantage should his assigned counsel be unable to fully cross-examine either of the prosecution witnesses and ultimately stated, “I’d like to seek new counsel, I guess.” Later, in response to County Court’s additional queries, defendant confirmed that he wanted a new attorney and reasserted his unwillingness to waive any potential conflict of interest. Thereafter, County Court asked if there was an application for a mistrial, to which defendant — through his assigned counsel — stated that there was. … Upon our review of the entire colloquy, we find that defendant requested and, thus, consented to a mistrial … . Inasmuch as the record wholly belies defendant’s further contention that County Court and/or the Special Prosecutor deliberately engaged in misconduct intended to provoke a mistrial, defendant’s retrial was not barred by double jeopardy protections … . People v Ellis, 2020 NY Slip Op 02292, Third Dept 4-16-20

 

SHORTLY BEFORE TRIAL, THE PEOPLE WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO AMEND THE REFERENCE TO A DATE IN THE INDICTMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that the People were properly allowed to amend the designation of the date of an offense alleged in the indictment shortly before the trial began:

“At any time before or during trial, the court may, upon application of the [P]eople and with notice to the defendant and opportunity to be heard, order the amendment of an indictment with respect to defects, errors or variances from the proof relating to . . . time . . ., when such an amendment does not change the theory or theories of the prosecution as reflected in the evidence before the grand jury which filed such indictment, or otherwise tend to prejudice the defendant on the merits” (CPL 200.70 [1]). Here, the original indictment asserted that defendant’s first assault upon the victim took place on June 15, 2017. About two weeks before the commencement of the trial, the People sought leave to amend it to provide that the incident occurred “on or about” June 15, 2017, on the ground that the initial date had been an approximation and that subsequent investigation had narrowed down the time to the late evening hours of June 15, 2017 and/or the early morning hours of June 16, 2017. The amendment did not alter the theory of the prosecution; the People consistently maintained, both before the grand jury and at trial after the amendment, that defendant strangled and assaulted the victim in their room after the gathering in the motel office and before her first treatment at the hospital on the morning of June 16, 2017. The amendment merely served to address the possibility that the incident began in the evening of June 15, 2017 and continued past midnight into the early morning hours of the next day. There was no prejudice to defendant, who did not proffer an alibi defense … . People v Baber, 2020 NY Slip Op 02294, Third Dept 4-16-20

 

,

AFTER THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION AT THE SCENE AND AFTER DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND SEATED IN THE BACK OF THE POLICE CAR, THE OFFICER ASKED DEFENDANT “WHAT HAPPENED?”; DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined statements made by defendant when he was handcuffed in the back of a police car should have been suppressed. The officer (Nellis) asked the defendant “What happened?” after the initial investigation was over:

After Nellis arrived at the scene and discovered defendant in the driveway, he entered the residence and found the victim being treated by defendant’s mother. The victim was convulsing and making gurgling sounds, and Nellis observed bruises and dried blood on her face. Nellis radioed emergency services to respond immediately, exited the residence and informed defendant that he was being detained for questioning. The officer did not immediately ask defendant what happened, but, after defendant was handcuffed and placed in the backseat of the patrol car, Nellis asked defendant, “What happened?” In response, defendant told him that he “snapped” and he “wanted her to feel the pain he had.” Defendant also admitted, “I choked her with a rope but never struck her in the face.” County Court allowed the statements, reasoning that the purpose of Nellis’ questioning was to clarify the nature of the volatile situation rather than to elicit evidence of a crime. We disagree.

The incident had been completed, the parties had been identified and medical assistance requested; defendant had been cooperative and responsive. “[W]here criminal events have been concluded and the situation no longer requires clarification of the crime or its suspects, custodial questioning will constitute interrogation” … . …

We cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that these statements did not contribute to defendant’s conviction and, as such, the error was not harmless. People v McCabe, 2020 NY Slip Op 02288, Third Dept 4-16-20

 

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN TIME TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE GRAND JURY; INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant was not accorded a reasonable time to exercise his right to appear before the grand jury and affirmed the dismissal of the indictment:

… [T]he People were required pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a) to “accord . . . defendant a reasonable time to exercise his right to appear as a witness” before the grand jury. The statute “does not mandate a specific time period for notice; rather ‘reasonable time’ must be accorded to allow a defendant an opportunity to consult with counsel and decide whether to testify before a [g]rand [j]ury” … . As County Court duly recognized, defendant had no such opportunity, for the order assigning counsel was not initially provided to [the conflict defender] by the local court. Defendant, who remained incarcerated, was in no position to know that the appointment order had been misdirected. Nor did the generic presentment notice issued by the People … clarify matters, as it was sent to a number of attorneys, including [the conflict defender]. The People contend, nonetheless, that defendant had an opportunity to testify after the grand jury vote but before the indictment was filed pursuant to CPL 150.5 (5) (a). That contention is unavailing because, under the circumstances presented, defendant was deprived of an opportunity to testify before the grand jury voted … . People v Clark, 2020 NY Slip Op 02204, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

,

THE “FALSELY REPORTING AN INCIDENT” STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT’S FALSE TWEETS ALLEGING A RACIALLY-MOTIVATED ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s “falsely reporting an incident” conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined defendant’s tweets were protected by the First Amendment. Defendant was accused of falsely tweeting she was the victim of a racially-motivated assault:

… [A]lthough it was “not unlikely” that defendant’s false tweets about a racial assault at a state university would cause public alarm (Penal Law § 240.50 [1]), what level of public alarm rises to the level of criminal liability? Indeed, United States v Alvarez (567 US at 734 [Breyer, J., concurring]) informs us that criminalizing false speech requires either proof of specific harm to identifiable victims or a great likelihood of harm. Certainly, general concern by those reading defendant’s tweets does not rise to that level, nor does the proof adduced at trial, which established that defendant’s tweets were “retweeted” a significant number of times. In fact, because these “retweets” led to nothing more than a charged online discussion about whether a racially motivated assault did in fact occur, which falls far short of meeting the standard set forth in United States v Alvarez (567 US at 734 [Breyer, J., concurring]), we reach the inescapable conclusion that Penal Law § 240.50 (1), as applied to defendant’s conduct, is unconstitutional. …

… “[T]he remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true” (United States v Alvarez, 567 US at 727) and “social media platforms are information-disseminating fora. By the very nature of social media, falsehoods can quickly and effectively be countered by truth, making the criminalizing of false speech on social media not ‘actually necessary’ to prevent alarm and inconvenience” … . This could not be more apparent here, where defendant’s false tweets were largely debunked through counter speech; thus, criminalizing her speech by way of Penal Law § 240.50 (1) was not actually necessary to prevent public alarm and inconvenience … . People v Burwell, 2020 NY Slip Op 02205, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO ALLOW THE PROSECUTION TO CROSS-EXAMINE A DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT PRIOR UNCHARGED OFFENSES ALLEGEDLY INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED THE ERROR WAS REVERSIBLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined, although the trial court erred in allowing cross-examination of a defense witness (and co-defendant), Calderon, about prior uncharged offenses allegedly involving defendant, the error was harmless. The dissenters argued the error was reversible:

We agree with the dissent that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined Calderon concerning three other crimes in which he had left the scene in a dark SUV. Some of the questions included a partial or complete recitation of the license plate number of the SUV used in the instant crime. This was a clear attempt to associate defendant with uncharged crimes, and the court should have sustained defense counsel’s objections to this line of questioning. Similarly, the prosecutor should not have made two references in her summation to the use of this “getaway vehicle” in other crimes when discussing Calderon’s testimony. * * *

The evidence at trial demonstrates that there is no “significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility,” that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the references to the SUV’s connection with Calderon’s other crimes … . People v Vasquez, 2020 NY Slip Op 02237, First Dept 4-9-20

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE IMPOUNDMENT OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AND THE INVENTORY SEARCH WERE LAWFUL; SEIZED EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not demonstrate the impoundment of defendant’s car and the inventory search which turned up a weapon and a marijuana cigarette were lawful. Therefore the seized items should have been suppressed. The defendant parked in a visitor’s space and went into the police station to pick up a friend’s property. After presenting his ID, the police discovered a bench warrant, arrested him, impounded his car and conducted an inventory search:

The People failed to establish the lawfulness of the impoundment of the defendant’s car and subsequent inventory search … . The arresting officer testified that the defendant’s vehicle was legally parked in a visitor’s parking space, and the officer was unaware of posted time limits pertaining to the visitor parking spaces. Although the officer testified that he impounded the defendant’s vehicle to safeguard the defendant’s property against a potential burglary, the People presented no evidence demonstrating any history of burglary or vandalism in the area where the defendant had parked his vehicle. Thus, the People failed to establish that the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle was in the interests of public safety or part of the police’s community caretaking function … . Moreover, the People failed to present any evidence as to whether the New York City Police Department had a policy regarding impoundment of vehicles, what that policy required, or whether the arresting officer complied with that policy when he impounded the defendant’s vehicle … . People v Weeks, 2020 NY Slip Op 02198, Second Dept 4-2-20

 

,

DISCLOSURE OF WITNESS CONTACT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELAYED UNTIL 15 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined disclosure of contact information re: the complainant’s mother and two 911 callers must be delayed until 15 days before trial:

Where, as here, “the issue involves balancing the defendant’s interest in obtaining information for defense purposes against concerns for witness safety and protection, the question is appropriately framed as whether the determination made by the trial court was a provident exercise of discretion” … .

Applying the factors set forth in CPL 245.70(4), including concerns for witness safety and protection, I conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in directing immediate disclosure of the subject materials to counsel for the defendant, counsel’s investigator, and the defendant. Under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have delayed disclosure of the address and contact information of the complainant, and of the name, address, and contact information of the complainant’s mother and the individuals identified as the first and second 911 callers … . People v Harper. 2020 NY Slip Op 02193, Second Dept 4-2-20

 

,

DEFENDANT’S REPEATED REQUESTS TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial, finding that defendant had been denied his right to represent himself. The opinion is basically a detailed rendition of the facts demonstrating that defendant repeatedly requested that he be allowed to represent himself and was repeatedly assigned new counsel after he repeatedly was found mentally fit for trial. There was no evidence defendant was seeking to delay the trial or otherwise interfere with the proceedings:

When a defendant desires to exercise the right to represent himself, “the court’s only function is to ensure that the defendant is acting knowingly and voluntarily, that is, that the defendant is aware of the disadvantages and risks of waiving his right to counsel” … . If the waiver is knowing and voluntary, the request must be granted … . * * *

The court’s belated finding … that defendant intended to “disrupt” the proceedings cannot be used as post-hoc justification of its earlier denials of repeated requests to proceed pro se. Defendant’s requests to proceed pro se were denied throughout 2008, 2009, and much of 2010, without mention of “disruption” as a basis.

It was hardly surprising that defendant expressed increasing frustration with the process, given that he had repeatedly been found fit to proceed, and yet the court continued to deny his requests to proceed pro se and to ignore his complaints regarding counsel. As the Court of Appeals has observed, in finding a defendant’s “outburst” insufficient to trump his right to self-representation,

“Just as the court may not rely on a postruling outburst to validate an erroneous denial, the court may not goad the defendant to disruptive behavior by conducting its inquiry in an abusive manner calculated to belittle a legitimate application. An outburst thus provoked will not justify the forfeiture of the right to self-representation” … .

That defendant on occasion agreed to the appointment of new lawyers does not render his requests to proceed pro se equivocal … . A defendant who elects to proceed pro se “is frequently motivated by dissatisfaction with trial strategy or a lack of confidence in counsel” … .

An erroneous denial of the right to defend onself is not subject to a harmless error analysis. We are therefore obliged to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. People v Trammell, 2020 NY Slip Op 02190, First Dept 4-2-20

 

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