You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ANALYST WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE GENERATION OF THE DNA PROFILE HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCEDURE USED OR INDEPENDENTLY ANALYZED THE RAW DATA; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine a witness who had first-hand knowledge of the generation of the DNA profile:

When confronted with testimonial DNA evidence at trial, a defendant is entitled to cross-examine “an analyst who witnessed, performed or supervised the generation of defendant’s DNA profile, or who used his or her independent analysis on the raw data” … . As the defendant contends, the People failed to establish that the analyst who testified in this case performed such a role in the testing or analysis of the testimonial DNA evidence introduced against him at trial … . Since the error was not harmless, the defendant is entitled to a new trial … . People v Butler, 2020 NY Slip Op 02676, Second Dept 5-6-20

 

,

WHETHER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE (EED) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MUST BE DETERMINED BASED SOLELY UPON THE PEOPLE’S PROOF AT TRIAL; IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR FOR THE COURT TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION PRIOR TO TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the court committed (harmless) error when it ruled, prior to the trial, that the jury would not be instructed on the extreme emotional disturbance (EED) affirmative defense:

… [T]he court erred in determining prior to trial that it would not charge the jury on the affirmative defense of EED. A defendant may be entitled to a jury charge on the affirmative defense of EED based solely on the People’s proof … , and thus it was error for the court to make that ruling without any consideration of the People’s evidence. People v Taglianetti, 2020 NY Slip Op 02561, Fourth Dept 5-1-20

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN THE ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION THE WAIVER OF APPEAL FORECLOSED ALL APPELLATE RIGHTS; THE WAIVER WAS THEREFORE INVALID (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was not valid because the court gave the erroneous impression all appellate rights were given up by the waiver:

County Court’s oral explanation of the waiver suggested that defendant was entirely ceding any ability to challenge his guilty plea on appeal, but such an “improper description of the scope of the appellate rights relinquished by the waiver is refuted by . . . precedent, whereby a defendant retains the right to appellate review of very selective fundamental issues, including the voluntariness of the plea” … . In addition, by further explaining that the cost of the plea bargain was that defendant would no longer have the right ordinarily afforded to other defendants to appeal to a higher court any decision the court had made, the court “mischaracterized the waiver of the right to appeal, portraying it in effect as an absolute bar’ to the taking of an appeal” … . The written waiver executed by defendant did not contain clarifying language; instead, it perpetuated the mischaracterization that the appeal waiver constituted an absolute bar to the taking of a first-tier direct appeal and even stated that the rights defendant was waiving included the “right to have an attorney appointed” if he could not afford one and the “right to submit a brief and argue before an appellate court issues relating to [his] sentence and conviction” … . Where, as here, the “trial court has utterly mischaracterized the nature of the right a defendant was being asked to cede,’ [this] [C]ourt cannot be certain that the defendant comprehended the nature of the waiver of appellate rights’ ” … . People v Youngs, 2020 NY Slip Op 02558, Fourth Dept 5-1-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT, FROM THE OUTSET, CLAIMED A MAN SHE HAD JUST MET AT A BAR WAS DRIVING HER CAR WHEN IT WENT OFF THE ROAD AND THEN FLED THE SCENE; THE DWI CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) convictions, determined the convictions were against the weight of the evidence. The defendant claimed from the outset that her car, which had gone off the road, was driven by a man she just met at a bar and who fled after the accident. There was no direct evidence defendant was the driver:

Defendant’s assertion that the car had been operated by an individual named Paul was not inconsistent with the evidence at trial. Although defendant’s request that the passing motorist not call 911 constituted evidence of consciousness of guilt, it is well settled that consciousness of guilt evidence is a “weak” form of evidence … . The failure of defendant to provide a more detailed description of Paul did little to disprove defendant’s hypothesis of innocence, given the general nature of the questions posed to her and their emphasis on contact information for Paul that defendant reasonably was not in a position to provide. Finally, the testimony of the investigator that the position of the driver’s seat in the car was inconsistent with the car being driven by someone who is 5 feet 10 inches tall, as opposed to defendant’s height of 5 feet 7 inches, may have been persuasive if there were other such circumstantial evidence, but no other evidence existed here. Giving the evidence the weight it should be accorded, therefore, we find that the People failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant operated the car that had gone off the roadway … . People v Bradbury, 2020 NY Slip Op 02577, Fourth Dept 5-1-20

 

,

THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF TWO LACERATIONS ON THE VICTIM’S NECK, 3-4 AND 5-6 CENTIMETERS LONG, SUPPORTED THE TWO COUNTS OF FIRST DEGREE ASSAULT BASED UPON DISFIGUREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was sufficient to support the assault first degree counts based upon disfigurement, i.e., two lacerations, 3-4 and 5-6 centimeters long, on the victim anterior neck:

… [T]he evidence before the grand jury included the testimony of the victim, the victim’s medical records, and photographs of the victim taken on the day of the incident. The evidence established that, as a result of the assault, the victim sustained “two significant lacerations to her anterior neck,” which were 3-4 and 5-6 centimeters long, respectively, with soft tissue defects and exposure of underlying subcutaneous fat. The lacerations required at least 10 sutures to close. We conclude that the grand jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that the sutured wounds resulted in permanent scars … . We further conclude that, when “viewed in context, considering [their] location on the body”… , the grand jury could reasonably infer that the scars would “make the victim’s appearance distressing or objectionable to a reasonable person observing her” … . People v Harwood, 2020 NY Slip Op 02594, Fourth Dept 5-1-20

 

,

AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP AND A FOOT CHASE DEFENDANT WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY; NOTHING THE DEPUTY HAD SEEN AT THAT POINT PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE DEFENDANT’S CAR; AFTER OPENING THE CAR DOOR AND SMELLING MARIJUANA THE DEPUTY CONDUCTED A WARRANTLESS SEARCH; THE DRUGS AND WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the deputy did not have probable cause for a warrantless search of defendant’s car and the drugs and weapon found in the car should have been suppressed. The deputy initiated a traffic stop because defendant allegedly made a turn without signaling. The defendant told the deputy he could not roll down his window or open the driver side door. After making “furtive” movements inside the car, the defendant opened the passenger side door and fled. The deputy chased defendant and took him into custody. When asked why he ran, defendant said there was a warrant for his address. The deputy returned to defendant’s car, opened the door, smelled marijuana and searched the car. The Fourth Department found that nothing the deputy had seen prior to his opening the car door provided probable cause for the search:

Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, “a search conducted without a warrant issued by an impartial Magistrate is per se unreasonable unless one of the established exceptions applies” … . “One such exception is the so-called automobile exception’, under which State actors may search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there” … . Applying our State Constitution, the Court of Appeals has held that when police want to search a vehicle at the time they arrest its occupant, “the police must… not only have probable cause to search the vehicle but . . . there must also be a nexus between the arrest and the probable cause to search” … . “[T]he requirement of a connection” between “the probable cause to search and the crime for which the arrest is being made” is “flexible” inasmuch as a court need not focus “solely on the crimes for which a defendant was formally arrested” … . “[T]he proper inquiry is simply whether the circumstances gave the officer probable cause to search the vehicle” … . When police officers stop a vehicle, they may have probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception based “on grounds other than those that initially prompted [the officers] to stop the vehicle,” i.e., the probable cause may come to light after the stop… . …

Although defendant engaged in “furtive and suspicious activity” and his “pattern of behavior, viewed as a whole” was suspicious … , there was no direct nexus between the initial traffic stop for a traffic violation and the search of defendant’s vehicle. Furthermore, there was no direct nexus between the arrest of defendant and the search of his vehicle. Defendant made no statements to suggest that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of a crime … , the deputy did not observe any contraband in plain view , the deputy did not find any contraband on defendant’s person when he took defendant into custody … , and it cannot be said that defendant’s “furtive movements” toward the center console lacked any innocent explanation or occurred under circumstances suggesting that criminal activity was afoot … . People v Johnson, 2020 NY Slip Op 02589, Fourth Dept 5-1-20

 

,

THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE GRAND JURY IN THIS DRUNK-DRIVING-ACCIDENT CASE SUPPORTED THE TWO COUNTS OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT STEMMING FROM INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE TWO PASSENGERS; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THOSE COUNTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence submitted to the Grand Jury supported the depraved indifference assault counts stemming from injuries suffered by the two passenger in a drunk driving accident after a police pursuit:

The … accident reconstruction revealed that defendant was driving 119 miles an hour five seconds before the accident, then slammed on his brakes and steered hard to the right, hurtling into the parking lot and striking a concrete barrier at approximately 60 miles per hour. * * *

Drunk driving cases do not ordinarily lend themselves to a finding of depraved indifference, nor does “every vehicular police chase resulting in death [or serious injury] . . . take place under circumstances evincing” it … . Unlike in cases where a defendant attempted to avoid harming others in the course of a chase … , however, the intoxicated defendant here was warned by one of his passengers that he should slow down and “was well aware that [he] was endangering [their] lives” by flouting traffic laws and fleeing a police officer at ludicrous speeds on local roads … . Moreover, the same passenger testified that defendant knew that the parking lot was a shortcut to another street and that he suddenly “turned into” it when she mentioned seeing a police cruiser. The grand jury could infer from this proof that defendant did not care about the welfare of his passengers and that he lost control of the vehicle not in an unsuccessful effort to navigate a bend in the road, but rather in a near-suicidal gambit to escape police by making an abrupt turn at high speed and trying to traverse the parking lot. It follows from those inferences that defendant “appreciated that he . . . was engaging in conduct that presented a grave risk of death and totally disregarded that risk, with catastrophic consequences” … . Although innocent inferences could also be drawn from the evidence presented, legally sufficient proof nevertheless existed for the grand jury’s finding that defendant exhibited depraved indifference toward his passengers and, thus, Supreme Court erred in dismissing the two counts of assault in the first degree … . People v Edwards, 2020 NY Slip Op 02503, Third Dept 4-30-20

 

,

THE MOTION COURT APPLIED THE WRONG CRITERIA WHEN RULING ON WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO INFORM HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; ASSESSING DEFENDANT’S CHANCES AT TRIAL IS NOT THE PROPER ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a dissent, determined the motion court applied the wrong criteria for assessing whether the defendant was prejudiced by the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant moved to vacate his conviction, alleging defense counsel did not inform him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The defendant’s chance of success at trial is irrelevant to whether defendant was entitled to a hearing. The First Department succinctly summarized the issues and the ruling as follows:

We find that the trial court improperly denied the motion without a hearing pursuant to CPL 440.30(4)(d) (i) & (ii). This section permits a court to reach the merits of a postjudgment motion without a hearing to dismiss frivolous claims … . In the case at bar, however, as the dissent concedes, there is independent support for defendant’s assertion that his plea was induced by erroneous advice given by his trial counsel, namely that his felony guilty plea would not subject defendant to mandatory deportation. Nevertheless, the dissent argues that summary denial of the CPL 440.10 motion is still proper, because defendant’s allegations did not raise a reasonable possibility that he was prejudiced by the misadvice. We disagree. Like the court below, the dissent applies the wrong prejudice standard, by focusing exclusively on defendant’s alleged lack of a viable defense and the likelihood he would have been convicted after trial, and disregards the particular circumstances of defendant’s desire to remain in the United States. The dissent’s reasoning is contradicted by the recent United States Supreme Court holding in Lee v United States (582 US __, 137 S Ct 1958, 1966 [2017]), which rejects any per se rule that prevents a defendant from establishing prejudice by an attorney’s erroneous advice simply because the defendant may not have a strong defense. Instead, as Lee v United States mandates, even if the chance of success at trial is low, the prejudice inquiry should focus on the defendant’s decision-making and whet her it was reasonable for one in defendant’s position, facing mandatory deportation, to choose to take a shot a trial. People v Lantigua, 2020 NY Slip Op 02557, First Dept 4-30-20

 

,

THE INFORMATION SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE ELEMENTS OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT; THE ‘OBTAIN A BENEFIT’ ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE OTHER ALLEGATIONS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined the information charging defendant with official misconduct in violation of Penal Law section 195 was not jurisdictionally defective because the “obtain a benefit” element of the offense could be inferred from the allegations. The defendant, an alcohol and substance abuse treatment program aide at a prison, was charged with the unauthorized provision of prison documents concerning an incident at the prison to an inmate. The allegations were sufficient to infer that the defendant intended that providing the documents benefited the inmates involved:

With respect to the third element—that defendant must act with the intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another of a benefit—defendant’s intent may be reasonably inferred from her conduct and the surrounding circumstances … . …[T]he information, with defendant’s statement attached as a supporting deposition, sufficiently alleged that defendant disclosed information to an inmate that the inmate was not authorized to have, and that defendant knew that this disclosure was unauthorized. From those allegations, coupled with defendant’s admissions in her statement regarding inappropriate contact with and favors conducted for inmates involved in the unusual incident and the disclosure, one can reasonably infer that defendant committed the unauthorized disclosure with the intent to benefit herself or the inmates involved. Notably.”benefit” is defined as “any gain or advantage to the beneficiary and includes any gain or advantage to a third person pursuant to the desire or consent of the beneficiary” (Penal Law § 10.00 [17]). In this case, the People were not required to specify in the information whether defendant intended to benefit herself or the inmates, because either or both would satisfy this element of the statute and both theories are supported by defendant’s statement to police … . People v Middleton, 2020 NY Slip Op 02530, CtApp 4-30-20

 

THE OMISSION OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE OFFENSE FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND ANY ERRORS WERE FORFEITED BY THE GUILTY PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the failure to include the time and place of the crime in the superior court information (SCI) was not a jurisdictional defect and any errors were forfeited by the guilty plea:

… [D]efendant contends that the waiver of indictment and SCI omitted essential information required by CPL 195.20, rendering the waiver of indictment invalid and the SCI jurisdictionally defective. In support of this claim, defendant points to the fact that neither the waiver of indictment nor the SCI sets forth the approximate time of the crime, and the waiver of indictment also failed to set forth the place where it occurred. While we acknowledge these deficiencies, we do not find that they mandate dismissal of the SCI and reversal of the judgment of conviction given our recent decisions in People v Shindler (179 AD3d 1306, 1307 [2020]) and People v Elric YY., (179 AD3d 1304, 1305 [2020]), and the Court of Appeals’ decision in People v Lang (___ NY3d ___, ___, 2019 NY Slip Op 08545, *7-9 [2019]). As is relevant here, the Court of Appeals found in Lang that the date, approximate time and place of the crime in the waiver of indictment constituted non-elemental factual information, the omission of which did not amount to a jurisdictional defect (see People v Lang, 2020 NY Slip Op 08545 at *8-9). In view of this decision, we abandoned the standard enunciated in People v Busch-Scardino (166 AD3d 1314 [2018]) and concluded in Shindler and Elric YY. that the omission of the approximate time and place was not a jurisdictional defect rendering the waiver of indictment invalid.

Here, defendant was provided adequate notice of the crime charged based upon a reading of the waiver of indictment and the SCI together … , as well as the felony complaint, which set forth in detail the nature of the crime and the approximate time and place where it occurred … . Significantly, defendant did not raise any objection to the sufficiency of the waiver of indictment or the SCI before County Court, or demand a bill of particulars. Therefore, the subject omissions are nonjurisdictional defects that were forfeited by defendant’s guilty plea … .People v Morgan-Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 02501, Third Dept 4-30-20

 

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