You are here: / Criminal Law

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

 

PRIOR CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT FROM ELIGIBILITY FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; IT IS NOT AN ‘ARMED FELONY’ (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the prior conviction of criminal possession of a weapon was not an “armed felony” did not render defendant ineligible for youthful offender status:

Defendant’s prior conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, for “possess[ing] a loaded firearm” (Penal Law § 265.03[1][b]) was not an “armed felony” within the meaning of CPL 720.10(2)(a). As relevant here, CPL 1.20, which CPL 720.10(2)(a) incorporates, defines “armed felony” as “any violent felony offense defined in section 70.02 of the penal law that includes as an element . . . possession . . . of a deadly weapon, if the weapon is a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury may be discharged” … . The statutory definition of “loaded firearm” explicitly does not require that the firearm be “actually” loaded, because it includes within the definition a “firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm” (Penal Law § 265.00[15]). In contrast, the definition of “deadly weapon” contains no proviso indicating that an actually unloaded weapon is deemed “loaded,” and the definition is therefore met, where usable ammunition is readily available. Accordingly, “in order to be a deadly weapon, a gun must actually be loaded, as that term is commonly understood” … . Since a “loaded firearm” is therefore not always a “deadly weapon,” the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty did not “include[] as an element . . . possession . . . of a deadly weapon” (CPL 1.20[41][a]), and the court should not have found that defendant’s conviction rendered him presumptively ineligible. People v Ochoa, 2020 NY Slip Op 02156, First Dept 4-2-20

 

, ,

BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION MONTHS BEFORE HE PLED GUILTY, HIS ARGUMENT THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT INFORM HIM OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA WAS SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR PRECLUDED APPEAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge concurrence, determined defendant’s argument that the trial judge failed to inform him of the deportation consequences of his plea to a felony was subject to the preservation requirement. The defendant’s failure to preserve the error precluded appeal:

“[D]ue process compels a trial court to apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony” … . However, before we may consider whether a trial court fulfilled that obligation, we must determine whether a defendant preserved the claim as a matter of law for our review or whether an exception to the preservation doctrine applies … . Here, service on defendant, in open court and months before the plea proceedings, of a “Notice of Immigration Consequences” form provided him with a reasonable opportunity to object to the plea court’s failure to advise him of the potential deportation consequences of his plea, making the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine unavailable to him … . * * *

“Generally, in order to preserve a claim that a guilty plea is invalid, a defendant must move to withdraw the plea on the same grounds subsequently alleged on appeal or else file a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10” (Peque, 22 NY3d at 182). While reiterating this rule in Peque, we also acknowledged that “where a defendant has no practical ability to object to an error in a plea allocution which is clear from the face of the record, preservation is not required” (id.). This exception to the preservation requirement, however, remains narrow … . * * *

The very first sentence of the Notice explicitly told defendant that “a plea of guilty to any offense” could “subject[] [him] to a risk that adverse consequences w[ould] be imposed on [him] by the United States immigration authorities, including, but not limited to, removal from the United States . . . .” It further noted that, among other things, a conviction for “burglary . . . or any other theft-related offense . . . for which a sentence of one year or more is imposed” would be deportable.

Those unambiguous statements provided defendant with sufficient notice of possible immigration consequences, including deportation, of his conviction, giving him “a reasonable opportunity” to express concerns to the court — during either his plea or at sentencing — regarding those consequences … . People v Delorbe, 2020 NY Slip Op 02126, CtApp 3-31-20

 

,

A FRYE HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE LOW COPY NUMBER (LCN) DNA EVIDENCE AND THE EFFICACY OF A FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST); THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a three-judge concurrence, ruled a Frye hearing should have been held to the determine admissibility of low copy number (LCN) DNA evidence and the efficacy of the forensic statistical tool (FST) used to conduct the statistical analysis. The abuse of discretion was deemed harmless however:

At the time this motion practice was initiated no court had completed a Frye hearing with respect to the FST, and only one court—namely, the Megnath (27 Misc 3d 405) court …—had conducted such a hearing with respect to LCN testing.  * * *

… [T]here was “marked conflict” with respect to the reliability of LCN DNA within the relevant scientific community at the time the LCN issue was litigated in this case … . * * *

… FST is a proprietary program exclusively developed and controlled by [the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME)]. The sole developer and the sole user are the same. That is not “an appropriate substitute for the thoughtful exchange of ideas . . . envisioned by Frye” … . It is an invitation to bias. People v Williams, 2020 NY Slip Op 02123, CtApp 3-31-20

Similar issues and result in People v Foster-Bey, 2020 NY Slip Op 02124, CtApp 3-31-20

 

,

NEW JERSEY CONVICTION FOR LEWDNESS, ALTHOUGH NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE IN NEW JERSEY, IS THE EQUIVALENT OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD; IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THE CONDUCT UNDERLYING THE FOREIGN OFFENSE IN ADDITION TO THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE; 30 POINT ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE NEW JERSEY CONVICTION WAS CORRECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over a concurrence and a two-judge dissent, determined defendant was properly assessed 30 points based upon his prior New Jersey conviction for lewdness. The New Jersey offense, based upon defendant’s repeatedly exposing himself to the 12-year-old victim,  was deemed the equivalent of New York’s endangering the welfare of a child:

At the SORA court hearing, defendant challenged the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 9, asserting that his New Jersey lewdness conviction was neither a registrable offense in New Jersey nor did the comparable offense under New York law—public lewdness (a misdemeanor)—subject defendant to SORA registration in New York … . * * *

At the outset, we must resolve whether reliance on the underlying conduct of a prior foreign conviction is appropriate as a matter of law for purposes of assessing points under risk factor 9 when conducting a SORA risk-level determination. Under these circumstances, we hold that it is. * * *

Our analysis of the New Jersey conviction starts with North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of New York, wherein we considered whether the defendant was required to register as a sex offender as a result of his federal conviction for possession of child pornography (8 NY3d 745 [2007]). That question turned on the “essential elements” provision in SORA, which defines “sex offense,” in relevant part, as “a conviction of an offense in any other jurisdiction which includes all of the essential elements of any [registrable sex offense in New York listed in section 168-a (2) of the Correction Law]” … . We concluded that, with respect to registrable offenses, the “essential elements” provision “requires registration whenever an individual is convicted of criminal conduct in a foreign jurisdiction that, if committed in New York, would have amounted to a registrable New York offense” … . …

In the SORA registration context … we [have held] that the strict equivalency standard was “not the optimal vehicle to effectuate SORA’s remedial purposes” and it was thus appropriate to utilize a more flexible approach that allowed consideration of the underlying conduct of a foreign conviction in addition to comparing the essential elements of the foreign and New York offense … . People v Perez, 2020 NY Slip Op 02096, CtApp 3-26-20

 

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