You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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

 

, ,

CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION ARISING FROM A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a two-justice dissent, determined the conviction for criminally negligence homicide was against the weight of the evidence. The passenger in defendant’s car was killed when defendant’s car went off the road, apparently after colliding with other cars defendant was attempting to pass. The decision described all of the witness’s testimony in detail and concluded the conflicting testimony was not a sufficient basis for a conviction:

“A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.10). A person acts with criminal negligence when “he [or she] fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such [a] circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” (Penal Law § 15.05[4]).

The defendant’s conduct must rise to a level of carelessness where its “seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s . . . sense of right and wrong” … . Moreover, the conduct must create the risk, rather than simply not perceive the risk … .

In cases concerning charges of criminally negligent homicide arising out of automobile accidents involving excess rates of speed, “it takes some additional affirmative act by the defendant to transform speeding into dangerous speeding” … .

Here, the People failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant “fail[ed] to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk” (Penal Law § 15.05[4]) which caused the death of his passenger. People v Derival, 2020 NY Slip Op 02072, Second Dept 3-25-20

 

, ,

TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THE ADMISSION OF DNA PROFILES WAS HEARSAY WHICH VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a concurrence, determined the testimony which formed the basis for the admission in evidence of DNA profiles was hearsay which violated the Confrontation Clause:

In People v John, we held that, 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” (27 NY3d 294, 315 [2016]). In People v Austin, we reiterated that a testifying analyst who did not participate in the generation of a testimonial DNA profile satisfies the Confrontation Clause’s requirements only if the analyst “used his or her independent analysis on the raw data to arrive at his or her own conclusions” (30 NY3d 98, 105 [2017] … ). The records before us do not establish that the testifying analyst had such a role in either case. Accordingly, because the analyst’s hearsay testimony as to the DNA profiles developed from the post-arrest buccal swabs “easily satisfies the primary purpose test” for determining whether evidence is testimonial … , we conclude that her testimony and the admission of those DNA profiles into evidence, over defendants’ objections, violated defendants’ confrontation rights. People v Tsintzelis, 2020 NY Slip Op 02026, CtApp 3-24-20

 

, ,

AN ENTRY IN THE CASE SUMMARY ALONE IS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF POINTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s risk level, determined that an entry in the case summary alone is not sufficient to justify an assessment of points:

We agree with defendant that the People failed to prove by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that he had committed a continuing course of sexual misconduct, i.e., risk factor 4 on the risk assessment instrument (RAI) … . The sole evidence presented by the People in support of that risk factor was the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. At the SORA hearing, however, defendant specifically denied the allegation within the case summary that he engaged in a continuing course of sexual misconduct, and instead testified that he engaged in one instance only. Indeed, it is undisputed that defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of rape in the third degree … stemming from a specific instance of intercourse that occurred on one specified day. We conclude that “the case summary alone is not sufficient to satisfy the People’s burden of proving the risk level assessment by clear and convincing evidence where, as here, defendant contested the factual allegations related to [the] risk factor” … . People v Maund, 2020 NY Slip Op 02011, Fourth Dept 3-20-20

 

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