You are here: / Criminal Law
,

LINEUP IDENTIFICATION WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the lineup identification procedure was unduly suggestive:

… [W]e agree with the defendant’s contention that the hearing court erred in finding that the pretrial identification procedure, a lineup, was not unduly suggestive. The defendant was the only person in the lineup with dreadlocks, and dreadlocks featured prominently in the description of one of the assailants that the complainant gave to the police. In addition, the dreadlocks were distinctive and visible despite the fact that the defendant and the fillers all wore hats … . Accordingly, the lineup identification should have been suppressed. The error was not harmless as it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant’s conviction … . Therefore, we reverse the judgment of conviction and order a new trial. People v Colsen, 2020 NY Slip Op 01514, Second Dept 3-4-20

 

,

PROTECTIVE ORDER DELAYING DISCOVERY UNTIL 45 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL GRANTED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted the People’s application for a protective order delaying release of discovery until 45 days before trial:

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. 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 and his investigator. Under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have delayed disclosure of the subject materials to counsel for the defendant and his investigator until 45 days before trial. People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 01439, Second Dept 2-28-20

 

,

ONCE A COURT SENTENCES A DEFENDANT TO SHOCK INCARCERATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE; APPEAL HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) did not have the authority to find the peititioner was not eligible for the shock incarceration based upon his drug-related prison disciplinary history. Although the appeal was moot because petitioner had completed the program, the appeal was heard as an exception to the mootness doctrine because the scenario is likely to recur:

Once an inmate has been judicially ordered into the program, DOCCS’ participation under Penal Law § 60.04 (7) is expressly limited to its administration of the program, i.e., the completion, discipline and removal of an inmate from the program. If the Legislature intended DOCCS to have administrative discretion as to the eligibility criteria, it could have said so. It is a canon of statutory interpretation that a court cannot by implication supply in a statute a provision that it is reasonable to suppose the Legislature intended to omit (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Statutes § 74). The doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies. The specification that DOCCS shall oversee completion, discipline and removal from the program implies in the strongest sense that the omission of DOCCS’ administrative eligibility regulation was intentional and not inadvertent … . Matter of Matzell v Annucci, 2020 NY Slip Op 01425. Third Dept 2-27-20

 

, ,

28-YEAR PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY IN THIS MURDER CASE DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; DNA PROFILE STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S 2008 ARREST MATCHED BLOOD EVIDENCE FROM THE 1984 MURDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined the 28 year pre-indictment delay in this murder case did not violate defendant’s due process rights. Defendant was arrested in 2008 and his DNA profile was obtained. He had been a suspect in the 1984 murder and the blood evidence from the murder was linked to the defendant:

… [T]he preindictment delay of more than 28 years was undoubtedly extraordinary, a fact that weighs in favor of the defendant … . However, under the circumstances presented, the People met their burden of demonstrating good cause for the delay … . The record of the Singer hearing supports the hearing court’s determination that the People acted in good faith in deferring commencement of the prosecution until after they were able to match the defendant’s DNA profile with the one found on some of the blood-stained items recovered from the crime scene.

While the defendant correctly points out that DNA testing of the crime scene evidence could have been performed years earlier, there is nothing to suggest that such tests would have yielded any meaningful information, as the defendant’s own DNA profile was not available to investigators for comparative purposes until it was entered into CODIS in March of 2008. Nor are we persuaded by the defendant’s contention that the People could have sought a court order compelling the defendant to produce a DNA sample for analysis before 2008 … . Considering that the outcome of such a proceeding, under the particular facts of this case, would be very difficult to predict … , we are loath to saddle the People with an affirmative duty to embark upon a course that could ultimately prove unsuccessful, and possibly jeopardize an ongoing investigation. People v Innab, 2020 NY Slip Op 01363, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

,

REVOLVER FOUND BY A PASSERBY SEVEN BLOCKS FROM THE CRIME SCENE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a revolver found by a passerby seven blocks from the scene of the crime should not have been admitted in evidence. The error was harmless however:

Supreme Court should not have admitted into evidence a revolver that was recovered by the police from underneath a vehicle five to seven blocks away from the scene of the crime and approximately seven hours after the shooting. The revolver was discovered by a passerby, who notified the police. “When real evidence is purported to be the actual object associated with a crime, the proof of accuracy has two elements. The offering party must establish, first, that the evidence is identical to that involved in the crime; and, second, that it has not been tampered with” … . At trial, the only eyewitness at the scene of the shooting who observed the defendant armed with a firearm testified that the defendant was armed with a “[s]ilver, long barrel” revolver. Contrary to the court’s determination, although that testimony was somewhat consistent with the defendant’s description of his revolver, it was insufficient to provide reasonable assurances that the revolver that was admitted into evidence was the same revolver used by the defendant during the shooting … . No forensic evidence was recovered from the subject revolver linking it to the defendant, and more significantly, the eyewitness was never asked, either by the police after the revolver was recovered or by the prosecution at trial, to identify the revolver as the “actual object” used by the defendant during the shooting … . Further, there was no evidence in the record to support the court’s independent observation that the revolver that was admitted into evidence was “very uncommon” and a “very, very unique gun.” People v Deverow, 2020 NY Slip Op 01359, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

,

ANONYMOUS 911 CALL WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE OR AS A PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the recording of the 911 call was not admissible as an excited utterance or as a present sense impression:

… [T]he People did not present sufficient facts from which it could be inferred that the anonymous caller personally observed the incident … . The anonymous caller merely stated to the 911 operator that “[s]omebody just got shot on East 19th and Albemarle” and that it “was a guy with crutches. He started to shoot.” Nothing in these brief, conclusory statements, which were made at least five minutes after the shooting occurred, suggested that the caller was reporting something that he saw, as opposed to something he was told … . Moreover, although there was testimony that the call was made from a payphone located in the vicinity of the shooting, the People did not demonstrate that the payphone was situated outdoors or in a place where the actual site of the shooting would be visible. Accordingly, the statement did not qualify as an “excited utterance” … .

For similar reasons, the declarations of the 911 caller were not admissible under the “present sense impression” exception to the hearsay rule. ” Present sense impression’ declarations . . . are descriptions of events made by a person who is perceiving the event as it is unfolding” … . Here, as just explained, the People failed to demonstrate that the anonymous caller was describing events that he actually perceived. People v Thelismond, 2020 NY Slip Op 01368, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

, ,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY MADE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. Executing a written waiver does not fix a deficient colloquy:

A defendant should … ” receive an explanation of the nature of the right to appeal, which essentially advises that this right entails the opportunity to argue, before a higher court, any issues pertaining to the defendant’s conviction and sentence and to have that higher court decide whether the conviction or sentence should be set aside based upon any of those issues . . . [and] that appellate counsel will be appointed in the event that he or she were indigent”‘ … . … [T]he Criminal Jury Instructions & Model Colloquies, available online through the New York State Unified Court System’s website, include a model colloquy for the waiver of the right to appeal … . While the use of the model colloquy is not mandatory, its use may nevertheless “substantially reduce the difficulties” … , provided that the trial judges retain and use flexibility to undertake individualized inquiries as appropriate.

Here, the record does not establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal … . The County Court’s terse colloquy during the plea allocution failed to sufficiently advise the defendant of the nature of his right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right  … . Although the defendant executed a written appeal waiver form, a written waiver is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal … . Moreover, the defendant was not informed of the maximum sentence that could be imposed if he failed to comply with the conditions of his plea agreement … . Thus, the purported appeal waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant’s contention that the enhanced sentence was excessive. People v Slade, 2020 NY Slip Op 01366, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SELECTED UNSWORN JUROR COULD NOT RENDER AN IMPARTIAL VERDICT BECAUSE OF AN OUT-OF-TOWN MEETING ON THE DAY BEFORE THE TRIAL WAS LIKELY TO CONCLUDE, THE PEOPLE’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should not have granted the People’s for cause challenge to a selected by unsworn juror. Although the juror had an important out-of-town meeting on the day before the trial was to conclude, the record did not demonstrate the juror could not render an impartial verdict on that ground:

The record did not justify the court’s discharge for cause of a selected but unsworn juror. Both defendant and the People initially declined to challenge the juror peremptorily or for cause. However, the prosecutor challenged the juror for cause, over defense objection, after the court, concerned about an important out-of-town meeting that the prospective juror was scheduled to attend on a day before the anticipated conclusion of the trial, announced that it would grant such a challenge. Although subsequent questioning demonstrated that rescheduling the meeting would be inconvenient for the juror, it did not establish that the juror, who never directly asked to be excused for hardship or otherwise, had “a state of mind that [was] likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based on the evidence adduced at the trial” … . By way of contrast, in People v Williams (44 AD3d 326, 326 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1010]), we found that the selected but unsworn juror at issue was unfit for service because her scheduling conflict involving a funeral “would make it difficult for her to focus on the trial.” Here, the juror’s responses did not establish a sufficient basis to sustain a challenge for cause, which was the only issue presented to and ruled upon by the court. People v Manning, 2020 NY Slip Op 01308, First Dept 2-25-20

 

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

 

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