You are here: / Criminal Law
,

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT MISCONDUCT IN A CIVIL SUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined cross-examination of a police officer about misconduct in a civil suit should have been allowed:

The trial court erred in denying defendant’s request to cross-examine a police Sergeant regarding allegations of misconduct in a civil lawsuit in which it was claimed that this police Sergeant and a police detective arrested the plaintiff without suspicion of criminality and lodged false charges against him … . The civil complaint contained allegations of falsification specific to this officer (and another officer), which bore on his credibility at the trial.

Contrary to the People’s allegations, the error was not harmless. The police sergeant’s credibility was critical because he was the only eyewitness to the crime … . Although the sergeant’s testimony was corroborated by other evidence, none of this corroborating evidence was sufficient, on its own, to prove defendant’s guilt, as all of it relied on the sergeant’s testimony for context. ​People v Conner, 2020 NY Slip Op 03200, First Dept 6-4-20

 

ALTHOUGH THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THE DEFENDANT WITH THE INTENTIONAL KILLING OF SCOTT WRIGHT, THE JURY WAS TOLD IN ANSWER TO ITS QUESTION THAT IT COULD CONVICT THE DEFENDANT IF THEY FOUND DEFENDANT INTENDED TO KILL THE NEXT PERSON WHO CAME THROUGH THE DOOR, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE IDENTITY OF THAT PERSON; THE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s murder conviction, determined the People were not required to prove defendant intended to kill the victim named in the indictment (Wright ). Although the indictment charged defendant with the intentional murder of Wright, the jury wanted to know if they could convict if they concluded defendant simply intended to kill the next person who came through the door (who happened to be Wright). The judge answered the jury’s question in the affirmative and the Third Department held the jury was properly instructed:

As defendant argues, “a jury charge may not constructively amend an indictment by varying the theory of the prosecution” … . “However, not every fact mentioned in an indictment is essential to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged, and thus it is not necessary in every case that the People prove all acts alleged in the indictment when the remaining acts alleged are sufficient to sustain a conviction” … . Significantly, the identity of the victim is not one of the elements of the crime of murder in the second degree … . Here, the People chose to go beyond the elements that they were required to prove to obtain a conviction both by asserting in the indictment that defendant specifically intended to shoot Wright and by making that argument at trial. Nonetheless, the jury was not required to accept this part of the People’s theory to convict defendant of murder in the second degree, so long as it found that the People had proven the elements of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we find that the instruction did not alter the prosecution’s theory … . …

… [W]e reject defendant’s contention that County Court’s supplemental instruction prejudiced defendant by introducing the new legal principle of mistake of fact. As defendant argues, the People made no arguments based on that principle during the trial. However, defendant’s theory of defense throughout the trial was that the gun went off accidentally and that defendant did not intend to shoot Wright or anyone else. This defense of accident would not have been altered or affected if the question whether defendant mistook Wright for someone else had been raised earlier; as previously noted, the identity of the victim is not an element of the crime of murder in the second degree. People v Lee, 2020 NY Slip Op 03049, Third Dept 5-28-20

 

,

BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIES TO VIDEO EVIDENCE AS WELL AS WRITINGS; ERROR IN FAILING TO EXCLUDE THE VIDEO EVIDENCE WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, disagreeing with County Court, determined the best evidence rule applies to video evidence. The error was deemed harmless however:

Defendant asserts that, under the best evidence rule, the cell phone video recording of surveillance video that depicted the exterior of the bar … , as well as the observations of the detective who viewed and recorded this cell phone video, should have been precluded. Defendant further asserts that the detective should not have been allowed to testify about what he saw on a surveillance video showing the inside of the bar. In overruling defendant’s objection, County Court noted that the best evidence rule applied only to writings. Contrary to the court’s reasoning, however, the best evidence rule can apply to videos (see e.g. People v Cyrus, 48 AD3d 150, 159 [2007] …). Furthermore, the People did not call the bar manager or a person who installed the video equipment to authenticate the surveillance video … . Accordingly, the court erred in overruling defendant’s objection to this evidence. People v Watson, 2020 NY Slip Op 03050, Third Dept 5-28-20

 

, ,

POSSESSION OF SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS IS PUNISHABLE BY A FINE AND JAIL TIME UNDER THE SANITARY CODE; THEREFORE A SEARCH WARRANT AUTHORIZING A SEARCH FOR SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS IS VALID; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL HERE WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid, but went on to find that the search warrant and search were valid and proper. The defendant argued that the search for synthetic cannabinoids not authorized because that substance is not encompassed by the Penal Law. However, the Sanitary Code makes possession of the substance a violation which can result in a fine and a jail sentence:

… [T]he appeal waiver was invalid because County Court failed to advise defendant that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty … , and also because the court increased the sentence, but failed to inquire into whether defendant wished to withdraw his consent to the appeal waiver … . …

A search warrant application must include “[a] statement that there is reasonable cause to believe that property of a kind or character described in [CPL] 690.10 may be found in or upon a designated or described place” (CPL 690.35 [3] [b]). Personal property that “[c]onstitutes evidence or tends to demonstrate that an offense was committed in this state” is subject to seizure (CPL 690.10 [4]). “Offense” is defined as “conduct for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or to a fine is provided by any law of this state” (Penal Law § 10.00 [1]). Further, a “[v]iolation” is defined as “an offense . . . for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of [15] days cannot be imposed” (Penal Law § 10.00 [3]).

Defendant is correct in asserting that the Penal Law prohibitions against the possession of controlled substances and marihuana do not specifically include synthetic cannabinoid. However, the Sanitary Code makes it “unlawful for any individual . . . to possess, manufacture, distribute, sell or offer to sell any synthetic phenethylamine or synthetic cannabinoid,” with exceptions not applicable here (10 NYCRR 9-1.2). Significantly, “[t]he provisions of the [S]anitary [C]ode shall have the force and effect of law and the non-compliance or non-conformance with any provision thereof shall constitute a violation punishable on conviction for a first offense by a fine not exceeding [$250] or by imprisonment . . . not exceeding [15] days, or both” (Public Health Law § 229 …). It follows that, by definition, a search warrant may be issued for the alleged possession of synthetic cannabinoids … . People v Morehouse, 2020 NY Slip Op 03048, Thrid Dept 5-28-20

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL ARGUED DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS NOT VIABLE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, remitting the matter for a determination of defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion to set aside the verdict, determined defendant’s attorney took a position adverse to defendant by arguing defendant’s pro se motion was not viable:

Prior to sentencing, the defendant moved, pro se, to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel stated that the defendant asked him to adopt the motion but that defense counsel did not believe that it was “viable.” He added that, in his opinion, the motion argued matters that were not “for the purview of the [c]ourt.” The Supreme Court declined to review the motion.

As the People concede, defense counsel, by taking a position adverse to that of his client on the motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30, deprived the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel … . People v Sonds, 2020 NY Slip Op 03036, Second Dept 5-27-20

 

,

COUNTY COURT’S POST-JUDGMENT DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION, AFTER A HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WAS AN INTERMEDIATE ORDER WHICH IS NOT APPEALABLE; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION TO REFLECT THE RECENT DENIAL OF THE SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE AMENDED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WOULD THEN BE APPEALABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the post-judgment order denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statements was an intermediate order which was not appealable. The Second Circuit, pursuant to defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ordered defendant’s release unless a state court adjudicated the voluntariness of his confession (made in 1986 when defendant was 16). County Court held a new suppression hearing and issued the order denying suppression. The Third Department sent the matter back to allow the amendment of the judgment of conviction to reflect the recent denial of the suppression motion, which would then be appealable:

Although not raised by the parties, we must first address the threshold issue of the appealability of County Court’s order. Indeed, an order denying a defendant’s suppression motion is an unreviewable intermediate order (see CPL 450.10). Ordinarily, in the course of a criminal proceeding, suppression hearings occur prior to a judgment of conviction and are reviewed incident to the direct appeal from that judgment. Nevertheless, there are cases, including the instant appeal, where a suppression hearing occurred after entry of a judgment of conviction … . In each of these cases, the trial court was specifically instructed that, if the defendant did not prevail in the suppression hearing, the judgment of conviction should be amended to reflect that fact … . Here, however, the Second Circuit did not advise County Court to take this step … , and there is no evidence in the record that an amended judgement of conviction was entered after the People prevailed at the suppression hearing.

Accordingly, because an amended judgment of conviction has not been entered, we must dismiss this appeal. This harsh outcome appears at odds with the federal habeas corpus remand, which, in our view, was intended to permit review of the suppression hearing until finally decided by the court of last resort. However, this dismissal provides County Court the opportunity to amend the judgment of conviction to reflect the denial of the suppression motion, and defendant could then appeal as of right from the amended judgment of conviction (see CPL 450.10 [1]). People v Dearstyne, 2020 NY Slip Op 02951, Third Dept 5-21-20

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARKS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HER GUILTY PLEA CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRING THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW COUNSEL; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the sentencing court should have assigned new counsel to defendant based upon defense counsel’s remarks about defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw her guilty plea, which created a conflict of interest. The dissenters argued that, before defense made the remarks evincing a conflict of interest, the sentencing judge had denied defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw her plea without prejudice to retain counsel and make a new motion:

After Supreme Court agreed to adjourn sentencing, without having decided defendant’s pro se motion, defense counsel requested that he be permitted to put “a couple [of] things on the record.” Upon receiving the court’s permission, defense counsel proceeded to make several detrimental statements that were adverse and prejudicial to defendant. At this point, a conflict of interest arose between defendant and defense counsel, and Supreme Court was obligated to relieve defense counsel of his representation of defendant … . Supreme Court, however, did not acknowledge that a conflict of interest had arisen or inform defendant that she was entitled to the assignment of new counsel, should she opt to avail herself of that option.

When defendant subsequently appeared in Supreme Court for sentencing, she was accompanied by her original assigned counsel.Once again, Supreme Court did not raise or address the conflict of interest that had previously arisen between defendant and defense counsel, assign new counsel or advise defendant that she was entitled to the assignment of new counsel. Defense counsel requested that defendant be granted an additional adjournment, … stating that defendant had retained a certain named attorney, but that “[t]he funds just [had not] reached him yet.” Without having afforded defendant an opportunity to confer with new counsel regarding her motion to withdraw her plea or having ruled on that motion, Supreme Court denied the adjournment request and proceeded to sentencing. By failing to relieve defense counsel of his representation of defendant once the conflict of interest arose and to either assign new counsel or permit defendant a sufficient opportunity to retain alternate counsel to represent her, Supreme Court deprived defendant of her right to the effective assistance of counsel in connection with her motion to withdraw her plea … . People v Maldonado, 2020 NY Slip Op 02953, Third Dept 5-21-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IMPROPERLY ADDRESSED TO THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP, WHICH INCLUDED PEACE OFFICERS AS OPPOSED TO POLICE OFFICERS, THE WARRANT WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO POLICE OFFICERS AS WELL; THE PARTICIPATION OF PEACE OFFICERS IN THE SEARCH WAS LIMITED AND DID NOT INVALIDATE THE SEARCH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the fact that corrections officers (i.e., peace officers) participated in a search, along with police officers, did not invalidate the search:

There is no dispute that the search warrant was properly addressed to police officers of the City of Middletown Police Department and police officers of the New York State Police (see CPL 1.20[34][a], [d]). Accordingly, the search warrant complied with the statutory requirement that it “be addressed to a police officer whose geographical area of employment embraces or is embraced or partially embraced by the county of issuance” (CPL 690.25[1]).

The defendant is correct that the search warrant was improperly addressed to the Special Operations Group, since it includes members who are not police officers within the meaning of the statute (see CPL 690.25[1]; see also CPL 2.10[25]). However, “[s]earch warrants should be tested in a commonsense and realistic manner with minor omissions and inaccuracies not affecting an otherwise valid warrant”  … . * * *

Here, the record of the suppression hearing demonstrates that the Special Operations Group played a limited role in the execution of the warrant. Members of that group merely secured entry to the residence for the benefit of the police officers who actually conducted the search and recovered the physical evidence at issue. People v Ward, 2020 NY Slip Op 02943, Second Dept 5-20-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED A PLEA WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT IN MANDATORY DEPORTATION COULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT; THE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel should not have been denied without a hearing. The defendant presented sufficient evidence that defense counsel could have negotiated a plea which would not result in mandatory deportation:

Where the basis of a claim for ineffective counsel is counsel’s failure to attempt to negotiate an immigration friendly plea, defendant has to show that there is a reasonable probability that the People would have made such an offer … . If the likelihood that the People would have made such an offer is speculative, then the motion may be denied without a hearing … . Here, however, defendant’s motion shows that there was a reasonable possibility that his plea counsel could have secured a plea deal with less severe immigration consequences. …

Defendant has adequately alleged that there was a reasonable possibility that the People would have offered defendant such a plea, despite the fact that the drug possession charge is a lesser-included offense to the drug sale charge. First, the People agreed to a sentence of one year in prison and one year of post-release supervision in order to cover defendant’s drug offenses. This suggests that there was a reasonable possibility that the People would have agreed to a different, immigration-favorable disposition resulting in the same aggregate prison time … . …

Second, both offenses subject defendant to equally enhanced sentences if he were to be convicted of another felony within 10 years … . …

Third, if the People had only been willing to offer the lesser-included offense together with a longer sentence, defendant might well have been willing to agree to that. …

Finally, there is no evidence that the People specifically sought a conviction on the drug sales offense in order to secure a harsher immigration consequence for defendant … . …

‘… [D]efendant demonstrated a reasonable possibility that he would have rejected his plea had he known that he could have obtained a sentence that had less harsh immigration consequences … . People v George, 2020 NY Slip Op 02852, First Dept 5-14-20

 

REFERENCES TO DEVIATE BEHAVIOR AND USE OF FORCE IN PETITIONER-INMATE’S CRIME AND SENTENCE INFORMATION FORM AND HIS COMPAS RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SEXUAL OFFENSES COMMITTED; THE PETITION SEEKING CORRECTION OF THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined petitioner-inmate had raised legitimate issues about the contents of his Crime and Sentence Information (CSI) form and his COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment Instrument requiring further proceedings in this Article 78 action. Specifically petitioner argued that references to “deviate” behavior and use of force in connection with sexual offenses were inaccurate:

… [W]ith respect to the CSI form, petitioner was not convicted of any crimes involving an element of “deviate” behavior … . Additionally, with regard to the challenged characterization in the COMPAS instrument indicating that petitioner committed a “[s]ex [o]ffense with [f]orce,” we note that petitioner was not convicted of a crime involving “force” or “forcible” contact … . Accordingly, to the extent that the inclusion of such references in the CSI form and COMPAS instrument could be perceived as misleading and be potentially prejudicial to “future deliberations concerning the petitioner’s status” … , we find that, at this stage of the proceeding, in the absence of a more developed record, petitioner has stated a potentially valid cause of action. Because respondent has yet to serve an answer in this matter, this matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for this purpose … . Matter of Staropoli v Botsford, 2020 NY Slip Op 02840, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

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