You are here: / Criminal Law
,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT THE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO STOP DEFENDANT ON THE STREET, DETAIN HIM, SEARCH HIS BAG AND TRANSPORT HIM TO THE BURGLARY SCENE FOR A SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s ruling that the officer did not have a sufficient basis for detaining the defendant on the street, searching defendant’s bag and transporting defendant to the burglary scene:

The evidence at the suppression hearing established that the officer who initiated the encounter with defendant was responding to a radio dispatch of a burglary in progress. Because other officers were already at the scene of the burglary when he arrived, the officer canvassed the nearby area in his patrol car. Shortly thereafter, the officer noticed defendant three blocks from the burglary scene, walking alone and carrying a bag and a cell phone. The officer approached defendant, exited his vehicle, and asked defendant what he was doing, and defendant stated that he was looking through garbage cans. The officer then searched defendant’s bag in order to check for weapons and informed defendant that he was going to drive defendant back to the scene of the burglary in order to determine whether defendant was a suspect. The officer placed defendant in the back of the patrol car and drove him to the scene of the crime, where a showup identification was conducted and defendant was identified as the burglar and arrested. The evidence also established that, prior to beginning his shift on the day of the encounter, the officer received a “be on the lookout” (BOLO) photograph depicting defendant and reflecting that defendant may have been involved in a prior burglary.

Contrary to the People’s contention, we perceive no basis in the record for disturbing the court’s finding that the officer did not recognize defendant as the individual depicted in the BOLO until after he drove defendant to the scene of the burglary for the showup identification … .

Although the officer justified the search of defendant’s bag as a check for weapons, the record does not reflect that, at any time during the encounter, the officer “reasonably suspected that defendant was armed and posed a threat to [his] safety” … . Further, all the officer could definitively recall of the initial radio dispatch reporting the burglary in progress was that it described the suspect as a male, although the officer also testified that the dispatch might have identified the suspect as Hispanic and wearing a dark hooded sweatshirt. The vague description of the suspect provided by the radio dispatch, as recounted by the officer at the suppression hearing, did not provide the officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion to effect what was at least a forcible detention of defendant and to transport him to take part in a showup identification … . People v Nazario, 2020 NY Slip Op 00955, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter to Supreme Court, noted that Supreme Court did not rule on defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal:

Defendant … contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction with respect to the weapon possession counts and that the court thus erred in denying his motion for a trial order of dismissal. At the close of the People’s case, defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his possession of certain weapons, and the court reserved decision. Defendant renewed his motion at the conclusion of all the evidence, and the court again reserved decision. There is no indication in the record that the court ruled on defendant’s motion. We do not address defendant’s contention because, “in accordance with People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]) and People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998], rearg denied 93 NY2d 849 [1999]), we cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . motion as a denial thereof” … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a ruling on defendant’s motion  … . People v Bennett, 2020 NY Slip Op 00957, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

,

DECISION WHETHER TO ADMIT OR DENY ALLEGATIONS IN A PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT IS RESERVED TO DEFENDANT PERSONALLY, NOT DEFENSE COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the decision whether to admit or deny the allegations in a predicate felony statement is reserved to the defendant personally, not defense counsel:

… [W]hether to admit or controvert the allegations in a predicate felony statement is a “fundamental” decision “comparable to how to plead and whether to waive a jury, take the stand or appeal,” and it is “therefore reserved to the accused” personally … . Thus, the court did not violate defendant’s right to counsel by accepting his personal decision to controvert the allegations in the People’s predicate felony statement notwithstanding defense counsel’s contrary views and advice … . Defendant’s related assertion that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately apprise him of the ramifications of contesting the predicate felony statement is belied by the record … . People v Favors, 2020 NY Slip Op 00968, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

,

FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S MENTAL CONDITION AFTER TWO PSYCHIATRISTS FOUND DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was reversible error to fail to conduct a hearing to determine defendant’s mental condition after defendant had been examined by two psychiatrists who concluded defendant suffered from a dangerous mental condition. The error was not preserved but was reviewed in the interest of justice:

Defendant now appeals, by permission of this Court, from an amended order that, upon the court’s finding that defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder, committed him to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health for confinement in a secure facility.

… CPL 330.20 (6) provides that, “[a]fter the examination reports are submitted, the court must, within [10] days of the receipt of such reports, conduct an initial hearing to determine the defendant’s present mental condition” … . In this case, however, the court did not conduct an initial hearing. We agree with defendant that, as the People correctly concede, the court’s failure to conduct the requisite initial hearing constitutes reversible error … . Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review … , we nevertheless review it in the interest of justice … . People v David T., 2020 NY Slip Op 00964, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

,

THE COURT, DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE PROSECUTOR WERE UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR A PAROLE SUPERVISION SENTENCE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY; THEREFORE THE MATTER CAN BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not eligible for a parole supervision sentence and the court, defense counsel and the prosecutor mistakenly believed defendant was eligible. Defendant’s guilty plea was based upon the understanding the court would consider such a sentence (which the court ultimately did not impose). Because all parties misunderstood the law, defendant could not be expected to have preserved the error by moving to withdraw his plea and the matter can therefore be considered on appeal:

… [W]e conclude that defendant’s plea should be vacated because “[i]t is impossible to have confidence, on a record like this, that defendant had a clear understanding of what he was doing when he entered his plea” … . In short, we “cannot countenance a conviction that seems to be based on complete confusion by all concerned” … . Where, as here, “the prosecutor, defense counsel and the court all suffered from the same misunderstanding of the [court’s sentencing discretion], it would be unreasonable to conclude that defendant understood it” … . Although the court did not commit to a sentence of parole supervision under CPL 410.91, it erroneously indicated that defendant was eligible for such a sentence and stated that it would consider such a sentence, among all sentencing options, at sentencing—it did not qualify its statement or advise defendant that there was a possibility that he was not eligible for such a sentence … . We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the superior court information. In light of our determination, we do not reach defendant’s remaining contentions. People v Work, 2020 NY Slip Op 00962, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

,

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND MURDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the trial evidence did not support consecutive sentences for criminal possession of a weapon and murder:

We agree with the defendant that the sentencing court could not lawfully direct that the sentence imposed upon one of the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree run consecutive to the sentence imposed upon the conviction of murder in the second degree. As the defendant correctly contends, it is impossible, based on the indictment or the trial court’s charge, to determine whether the act that formed the basis of the jury’s verdict on the criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree counts was not the basis for its conviction on the murder in the second degree count. Therefore, the People have failed to meet their burden of proving the validity of consecutive sentences … . People v McClinton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00879, Second Department 2-5-20

 

,

RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS MADE AWARE OF A JUROR’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DELIBERATIONS AND THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY; THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DNA TESTING OF GUM DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT WHILE IN CUSTODY WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the for cause challenges to two jurors should have been granted and the record does not indicate defense counsel was made aware of a juror’s complaint to the judge about the deliberations and the contents of a note from the jury. The decision dealt with several suppression issues, including the finding that DNA testing of a piece of gum discarded by the defendant when he was in custody was proper:

At the commencement of the second day of deliberations, the court met with counsel and deliberating juror C.H., who had left the court a telephone message expressing concerns about deliberations. This conversation took place outside the defendant’s presence. Although the court properly attempted to keep its communication with C.H. ministerial by simply directing her to put her concerns in writing, C.H. refused to accept the court’s directions, expressing concerns about the course of deliberations, including a concern that someone was “stirring the jury” and that other jurors had been “influenced.” The court eventually directed a court officer to return C.H. to the jury room and provide her with writing materials. * * *

After the colloquy with C.H. and following an off-the-record discussion, the defendant was returned to the courtroom, and the court stated that it had received a note from the jury which had been marked as Court Exhibit X and “sealed with the consent of all parties.” No further discussion of Court Exhibit X appears on the record. * * *

We cannot assume, from the County Court’s statement that the parties agreed to seal the note, that counsel was made aware of the exact contents of the note since “an insufficient record cannot be overcome with speculation about what might have occurred. The presumption of regularity cannot salvage an O’Rama error of this nature” … . Moreover, since the failure to disclose a jury note to counsel is a mode of proceedings error, it cannot be overlooked as harmless even where the evidence is otherwise overwhelming … . People v Kluge, 2020 NY Slip Op 00878, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

, ,

SEX TRAFFICKING CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the sex trafficking conviction, determined there was insufficient evidence defendant used force or participated in a scheme to compel the alleged victim to engage in prostitution by threat of physical harm. The sex trafficking conviction was deemed to be against the weight of the evidence:

The evidence showed that the alleged victim, her mother, and a third woman, sought to earn more money than they were earning in Florida, that they voluntarily traveled with defendant to New York to earn money as prostitutes, and that defendant left them alone at times in Florida and New York. There was no evidence presented at trial that defendant ever threatened to harm the alleged victim if she failed to begin or continue working as a prostitute. A detective described a call he overheard between defendant and the alleged victim, after she was apprehended, in which defendant was angry because he believed that she did not get money from a client. However, this does not suffice to prove any use of force or a “scheme” to compel her to work as a prostitute. Similarly, although the third woman in the group that came with defendant from Florida testified that she was a “little intimidated” by an argument over money between defendant and another man, this does not establish the required threat of harm, even assuming the alleged victim also saw and heard the argument. People v Hayes, 2020 NY Slip Op 00832, First Dept 2-4-20

 

,

THE WARRANTLESS SEIZURE AND SEARCH OF A BAG IN DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE; ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the inevitable discovery doctrine did not apply to a “diabetes bag” seized by the police. The bag should have been suppressed, but error was deemed harmless:

On the day of his arrest, a police officer pulled defendant’s vehicle over for failing to signal. Defendant had a passenger with him. After approaching the vehicle, the officer observed that defendant appeared to be under the influence of drugs and placed him under arrest. The passenger was also arrested. At a suppression hearing, the officer testified that, after she arrested defendant and seated him in her patrol vehicle, defendant indicated that he had diabetes medication in his vehicle. Defendant did not give the officer permission to retrieve the bag of medication from his vehicle or say that he needed it at that time, nor did he give her permission to open the bag. The officer testified that she retrieved the bag for defendant because defendant would be allowed access to certain medication in lockup; she did not intend to give the bag to defendant while he was in the patrol vehicle. The officer looked in the bag and found needles, “narcotics,” and “some residue”—not diabetes medication. Defendant’s vehicle was subsequently impounded pursuant to Buffalo Police Department (BPD) written policy. During the inventory search of the vehicle, the officers recovered, inter alia, methamphetamine. * * *

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained from the diabetes bag pursuant to the inevitable discovery doctrine. The contents of the diabetes bag that defendant sought to suppress was the “very evidence” that was obtained as the “immediate consequence of the challenged police conduct” … . People v Hayden-larson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00791, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

,

THERE SHOULD ONLY BE ONE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI); HERE THERE WERE TWO ASSESSMENTS IN TWO COUNTIES, ONE AT LEVEL TWO AND ONE AT LEVEL THREE; THE LEVEL THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there should not be more than one SORA risk assessment for convictions stemming from the same course of conduct and based upon the same Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI). The first risk assessment was in Allegany County and designated defendant a level two risk. The second risk assessment was in Cattaraugus County and designated defendant a level three risk based upon the evidence. The Cattaraugus County assessment was vacated:

… [D]efendant was convicted in Cattaraugus County Court upon his plea of guilty of attempted sodomy in the second degree and, that same year, he was convicted in Allegany County Court upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree. The convictions stemmed from a course of conduct against one victim that occurred in both jurisdictions. Defendant was sentenced in both cases and, prior to his release from prison, Allegany County Court held a proceeding to determine his risk level designation under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law § 168 et seq.) and designated him a level two risk. Cattaraugus County Court subsequently held a SORA proceeding utilizing a risk assessment instrument (RAI) and case summary that were substantively identical to those used in the Allegany County SORA proceeding, but designated defendant a level three risk. On a prior appeal … , we affirmed the order of Cattaraugus County Court designating him a level three risk.

“Where, as here, a single RAI addressing all relevant conduct is prepared, the goal of assessing the risk posed by the offender is fulfilled by a single SORA adjudication. To hold otherwise—that is, to permit multiple risk level determinations based on conduct included in a single RAI—would result in redundant proceedings and constitute a waste of judicial resources” … . In order to prevent multiple courts from reaching conflicting conclusions based on the same RAI, “one—and only one—sentencing court should render a risk level determination based on all conduct contained in the RAI” … . Inasmuch as the Cattaraugus County SORA proceeding was duplicative, we reverse the order and vacate defendant’s risk level determination  by Cattaraugus County Court … . People v Miller, 2020 NY Slip Op 00766, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

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