You are here: / Criminal Law

PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO DENY DISCLOSURE BECAUSE OF CONCERNS FOR WITNESS SAFETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the prosecutor’s request to deny disclosure of certain exhibits should have been granted:

Pursuant to CPL 245.70(6), a party who has unsuccessfully sought, or opposed the granting of, a protective order relating to the name, address, contact information, or statements of a person may obtain expedited review by an individual justice of the intermediate appellate court to which an appeal from a judgment of conviction would be taken. Although the statute does not specify what standard the intermediate appellate justice is to apply in performing the expedited review, I concur that 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 these standards to the matters at hand, I conclude that the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the People’s request only to the extent indicated was an improvident exercise of discretion. Under the particular facts and circumstances presented, concerns for witness safety and protection far outweigh the usefulness of the discovery of the material or information in question. Consequently, I grant the People’s application to review pursuant to CPL 245.70(6) and modify the protective order accordingly. People v Reyes, 2020 NY Slip Op 01275, Second Dept 2-21-20

 

, ,

PROOF OF THE VALUE OF THE STOLEN ITEMS WAS INSUFFICIENT; GRAND LARCENY 3RD DEGREE CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the grand larceny third degree charged was against the weight of the evidence because the value of the stolen items was not proven:

The People were required to establish that the market value of the stolen items at the time of the crime exceeded $3,000 (see Penal Law § 155.20[1]). Here, the stolen property consisted of two handguns, several items of jewelry, and a computer tablet. The complainant testified that (1) the purchase price of the .40 caliber Smith & Wesson automatic handgun was $800 and that he purchased it “[a]pproximately four years” before the burglary; (2) the purchase price of the .380 Ruger automatic handgun was $600 and that he purchased it “[t]wo years” before the burglary; and (3) he cleaned both guns regularly, and they were both operable. The People’s ballistics expert testified that the retail value of each firearm was “anywhere from $500 to $1,000.”

However, the only evidence of the value of the remaining stolen items was the complainant’s testimony regarding the purchase price of some of those items, and he did not testify as to when he purchased those items, their market value, or the cost to replace them. Although a “victim is competent to supply evidence of original cost” … , “evidence of the original purchase price, without more, will not satisfy the People’s burden” … . On this record, we cannot conclude that the fact-finder could “reasonably infer, rather than merely speculate” that the value of all of the stolen goods exceeded the statutory threshold of $3,000 … . Accordingly, we find that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the value of the property taken exceeded $3,000 … . People v Rivera, 2020 NY Slip Op 01192, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD THE MANDATORY STATUTORY HEARING; APPEAL IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF LASTING CONSEQUENCES OF THE ‘DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER’ FINDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel because the attorney conceded defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder. County Court should have held the mandatory statutory hearing. The appeal is not academic because of the lasting effect of the finding defendant suffers from a dangerous mental disorder:

Although the commitment order has expired by its own terms, the appeal is not academic because the County Court’s determination that the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder has lasting consequences that will affect all future proceedings regarding his commitment and release … .

The initial hearing under CPL 330.20(6) is a critical stage of the proceedings during which the defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel … . Here, there was simply no legitimate strategy that could have warranted defense counsel’s concession that the defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder, implicitly consenting to the defendant’s confinement in a secure facility … . As defense counsel failed to provide meaningful representation, the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel … .

Neither the defendant’s nor defense counsel’s concession to a finding of dangerous mental disorder can relieve the County Court from the obligation to provide the initial statutory hearing, which is mandatory (see CPL 330.20[6] … ). People v Juan R., 2020 NY Slip Op 01190, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

, ,

‘ANDERS’ BRIEF DEFICIENT; NEW COUNSEL ASSIGNED FOR THE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the “Anders” appellate brief submitted by counsel was deficient and assigned new counsel for the appeal:

The brief submitted by the appellant’s counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738) is deficient because it fails to contain an adequate statement of facts and fails to analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal … . The statement of facts does not review, in any detail, the Supreme Court’s advisements to the appellant regarding the rights he was waiving, the inquiries made of the appellant to ensure that the admission was knowingly and voluntarily entered, or the appellant’s responses to any of those advisements and inquiries … . Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel fulfilled his obligations under Anders v California, we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant … . People v Morales, 2020 NY Slip Op 01188, Second Dept 2-19-20

Similar issues and result in People v Santos, 2020 NY Slip Op 01193, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT STARTED UNTIL 22 MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENT; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined defendant should have been afforded a hearing on his motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation. Defendant was charged with damaging his wife’s computer in a domestic incident. The charge was not brought for 22 months:

“[U]nder state due process principles, lengthy and unjustifiable delay in commencing the prosecution may require dismissal even though no actual prejudice to the defendant is shown'” … . However, ” a determination made in good faith to defer commencement of the prosecution for further investigation or for other sufficient reasons, will not deprive the defendant of due process of law even though the delay may cause some prejudice to the defense'” … .. “Where there has been extended delay, it is the People’s burden to establish good cause” … .

Here, the County Court failed to appropriately balance the requisite factors and improperly denied, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of due process by the People’s unjustified delay in prosecution. Under the circumstances presented, which included a delay of approximately 22 months from the time of the incident to the filing of the indictment and arraignment, the People’s failure on the record to establish a good faith legitimate reason for the delay, and the defendant’s claim of prejudice, the County Court should have conducted a hearing before determining that the delay in prosecution was not in violation of the defendant’s due process rights … . People v Clark, 2020 NY Slip Op 01180, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

,

JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE ‘COMBAT BY AGREEMENT’ EXCEPTION TO THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).

Although the error was deemed harmless, the Second Department determined the jury should not have been instructed on the “combat by agreement” exception to the justification defense. Defendant was on a bus when rival gang members got on the bus. Defendant (14 years old) pulled out a gun and shot, killing an innocent passenger:

Supreme Court should not have charged the jury with respect to the combat by agreement exception to the justification defense. The court granted the People’s request for the instruction based upon generalized evidence that the defendant was a member of a gang which had a rivalry with other local gangs, including the gang with which the persons who approached the defendant were affiliated. However, any evidence of an alleged agreement in this case was tacit, open-ended as to time and place, and applicable to all members of the gangs of the parties involved as well as to all members of their affiliate gangs. The combat by agreement exception to justification is generally limited to agreements to combat between specific individuals or small groups on discrete occasions … . As there was no evidence of a combat agreement between the defendant and the specific persons who approached him on the bus, or among rival gang members during a discrete period of time or at a specific location, there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the combat by agreement exception applied to negate a justification defense in this case … . People v Anderson, 2020 NY Slip Op 01179, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

, ,

SCHOOL-GROUNDS-PROXIMITY-RESIDENCE PROHIBITION APPLIED TO PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE WAS BEING PAROLED WAS BURGLARY; SECOND DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE BY THE THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS; APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and disagreeing with the Third and Fourth Departments, determined Executive Law 259-c (14), which prohibits sex offenders from entering school grounds, applied to petitioner in this habeas corpus proceeding. Petitioner had been designated a level three sex offender and was subsequently arrested and incarcerated for burglary. He was not released on parole for the burglary conviction when his sentence was complete because housing which complied with the school-grounds condition could not be found. Although the habeas corpus petition was moot because defendant had been released at the time of the appeal, the exception to the mootness doctrine allowed appellate review:

Executive Law § 259-c(14) provides, in relevant part, that “where a person serving a sentence for an offense defined in [Penal Law articles 130, 135, or 263, or Penal Law §§ 255.25, 255.26, or 255.27] and the victim of such offense was under the age of [18] at the time of such offense or such person has been designated a level three sex offender pursuant to [Correction Law § 168-l(6)], is released on parole or conditionally released pursuant to [Executive Law § 259-c(1) or (2)], the [Board of Parole] shall require, as a mandatory condition of such release, that such sentenced offender shall refrain from knowingly entering into or upon any school grounds, as that term is defined in [Penal Law § 220.00(14)], . . . while one or more of such persons under the age of [18] are present.”

As a result of its inartful wording and use of the term “such person,” Executive Law § 259-c(14) has been interpreted in opposing fashion by the Appellate Division, Third Department (see People ex rel. Negron v Superintendent Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 170 AD3d 12) and the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (see People ex rel. Garcia v Annucci, 167 AD3d 199). Inasmuch as the statute is amenable to competing interpretations, we agree with the appellants that the language of the statute is ambiguous and should be interpreted with reference to its legislative history and the purpose of the enactment of the 2005 amendment … . The legislative history clearly supports an interpretation that imposes the SARA [Sexual Assault Reform Act]-residency requirement based on either an offender’s conviction of a specifically enumerated offense against an underage victim or the offender’s status as a level three sex offender … . People ex rel. Rosario v Superintendent, Fishkill Corr. Facility, 2020 NY Slip Op 01178, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

, ,

‘RELIABLE HEARSAY’ IN A PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION (PSI) REPORT IS A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR A FINDING DEFENDANT USED VIOLENCE IN THE COMMISSION OF A SEX OFFENSE; LEVEL TWO RISK ASSESSMENT UPHELD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined documentary evidence of “reliable hearsay” was sufficient for a finding defendant used violence to coerce the child victim in this “course of sexual conduct against a child” case, Therefore defendant was properly adjudicated a level two risk of reoffense:

At a SORA hearing conducted as defendant was nearing completion of his prison sentence, he was adjudicated a level two risk of reoffense due, in part, to the assessment of ten points under risk factor one, use of violence. That finding was based on information in the Presentence Investigation (PSI) report prepared in connection with the offense stating that “[o]n one or more occasions, he used physical force to coerce the victim into cooperation,” information also included in the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. Defendant argues that this evidence was insufficient to supply evidence of use of violence because it constituted hearsay and did not more specifically describe his conduct. …

SORA adjudications, by design, are typically based on documentary evidence under the statute’s “reliable hearsay” standard. Case summaries and PSI reports meet that standard … , meaning they can provide sufficient evidence to support the imposition of points. PSI reports are prepared by probation officers who investigate the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense, defendant’s record of delinquency or criminality, family situation and social, employment, economic, educational and personal history, analyzing that data to provide a sentencing recommendation (see CPL 390.30[1]). Their primary function is to assist a criminal court in determining the appropriate sentence for the particular defendant based on the specific offense. Defendants have a right to review the report prior to sentencing (see CPL 390.50[2][a]) and may challenge the accuracy of any facts contained therein at that time (see CPL 400.10). * * *

Because there is record support for the imposition of points under risk factor one, there is no basis to disturb the Appellate Division order. People v Diaz, 2020 NY Slip Op 01114, CtApp 2-18-20

 

THE ERRONEOUSLY UNSEALED RECORD OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING TERMINATED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE SENTENCING COURT, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the sentencing court should not have considered the erroneously unsealed records of a prior criminal action which was terminated in favor of the defendant. The matter was sent back for resentencing. “A court is without authority to consider for sentencing purposes erroneously unsealed official records of a prior criminal action or proceeding terminated in favor of the defendant. Where violation of the sealing mandate of CPL 160.50 impacts the ultimate sentence, the error warrants appropriate correction. Such is the case here, where the court imposed on defendant a higher sentence than promised at his plea, based on its finding that the unsealed trial record—which the court mistakenly believed it could consider—established defendant’s violation of a pre-sentence condition of his plea:”

Before sentencing, defendant was arrested and prosecuted for a crime allegedly committed after entering his plea. At defendant’s request, the sentencing court agreed to adjourn defendant’s sentencing pending resolution of the matter. The jury acquitted defendant of the new charge and the official record, including the trial transcript, was sealed in accordance with CPL 160.50.

The day following that acquittal, the prosecutor informed the court which had accepted defendant’s criminal possession plea that the People would be requesting an enhanced sentence on the criminal possession conviction because defendant violated a pre-sentence condition of the plea by engaging in criminal conduct during the sentencing adjournment, as made clear by defendant’s trial testimony in the other case. The prosecutor then moved to unseal the records in the prior criminal action terminated by acquittal, arguing “justice requires” unsealing because the trial testimony was relevant to defendant’s request to be sentenced under the terms of his plea. The court granted the motion. People v Anonymous, 2020 NY Slip Op 01113, CtApp 2-18-20

 

UNDERCOVER OFFICER’S DISTRESS SIGNAL, A GROUP OF MEN NEAR THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER YELLING, DEFENDANT’S STRUGGLING WITH THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER, DEFENDANT’S BREAKING FREE OF AN OFFICER’S RESTRAINT AND RUNNING, DEFENDANT’S FORCIBLY TAKING PROPERTY FROM THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER, AND THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE, COMBINED TO JUSTIFY THE SEIZURE AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT; THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY REOPENED THE SUPPRESSION HEARING TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant at the time defendant was seized and searched. Therefore defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The court noted that the distress signal made by the undercover officer together with the observation by Officer Regina of a group of men near the undercover officer yelling provided reasonable suspicion. Seeing defendant struggling with the undercover officer and the defendant’s breaking free and running when an officer attempted to restrain him provided probable cause for arrest. The First Department further determined the suppression hearing was properly reopened to allow the People to present additional testimony. The evidence at the reopened hearing provided another lawful basis for defendant’s arrest (the defendant had forcibly taken property from the undercover officer–probable cause imputed to the arresting officer by the fellow officer rule):

While Regina’s testimony established the requisite probable cause to arrest defendant, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s motion to reopen the suppression hearing before rendering a decision in order to permit the People to call an officer with additional information tending to establish reasonable suspicion … .The court had not made any ruling, and the circumstances did not pose a risk of tailored testimony.

Upon granting the People’s motion to present additional evidence, the court expressly stated that it had not yet rendered a decision … . Despite defendant’s arguments to the contrary, there is nothing in the hearing transcript to suggest that the court previously forecasted its decision or provided guidance to the People. The court’s very brief remark at the end of the initial hearing about an aspect of the facts cannot be viewed as “direction from the court” … , and was highly unlikely to result in tailored testimony … .

The evidence adduced at the reopened hearing established another lawful basis for defendant’s arrest. The undercover officer testified that, as he was attempting to buy drugs from another person, defendant interfered and forcibly took property from the officer. This gave the undercover officer probable cause to arrest defendant for robbery, which may be imputed to the arresting officer by way of the fellow officer rule … . The combination of the undercover officer’s distress signal, the field team officers’ observation of defendant in a struggle with the undercover officer, and the undercover officer’s act of chasing defendant satisfied the requirement that the arresting officer act on “direction of” or “communication with” a fellow officer … . The court’s general finding of probable cause can be reasonably interpreted as encompassing this theory … . People v Fraser, 2020 NY Slip Op 01037, First Dept 2-13-20

 

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