You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THE CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THE REDACTED PORTIONS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AND WERE INCULPATORY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the redacted statement of the co-defendant (Quaile) should not have been admitted in evidence because it was clear the redacted portions referred to the defendant and were inculpatory. Defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him was violated:

… [A]lthough Quaile’s statement was redacted, the jury was allowed to see where portions were blacked out and, given that the statement focused upon defendant’s arrest and the items found in the trailer, there were “obvious indications that it was altered to protect the identity of a specific person,” namely, defendant … . The redacted statement further advised the jury that defendant was Quaile’s live-in boyfriend, that she did not know what the plastic bottle and tissues found in their bedroom were used for, that she did not know how to make methamphetamine and that she “did not know the answers” to some of [a sheriff’s] questions at the trailer. When those comments are considered in tandem with the location of the blacked-out text in the statement, they can “only be read by the jury as inculpating defendant” by suggesting that he had the information and know-how that Quaile lacked and was involved in the charged crimes … . The admission of the statement therefore violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. In view of County Court’s failure “to give the critical limiting instruction that the jury should not consider the statement itself against anyone but” Quaile, as well as the lack of methamphetamine in the trailer or test results tying the items found in the trailer to methamphetamine production, we cannot say that the evidence against defendant is overwhelming or ” that ‘there is no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted [statement] contributed to the conviction'” … . People v Stone, 2020 NY Slip Op 00323, Third Dept 1-16-20

 

, ,

THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE WAS TOO WEAK TO PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE APPELLATE COURT CAN NOT CONSIDER THE PEOPLE’S ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN HE MADE THE STATEMENTS BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT RULED ON BELOW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the identification evidence was too weak to constitute probable cause for defendant’s arrest. Therefore defendant’s motion to suppress his statements should have been granted. The court noted that the People’s argument that defendant was not in custody when the statements were made could not be considered because the issue was not ruled upon by the trial court:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, no evidence was presented at the hearing that the defendant was identified “from a photographic image taken from one of the videos.” Detective John Kenney testified that a witness provided a description of the person she had seen holding a gun after shots were fired, including that the person was riding a bicycle. Kenney indicated that the witness was shown a photograph taken from a video recorded outside a restaurant near the scene of the crime, and that the witness identified the person depicted in the photograph as the individual she had seen holding a gun. Kenney also testified that another witness identified the person depicted in that photograph as the individual he had seen riding a bicycle after hearing the gunshots. However, no testimony was elicited that the person depicted in the photograph was identified as the defendant. Further, Detective Patrick Henn testified that another video was recorded across the street from the defendant’s home “just before the crime,” showing a person who “appeared to be the defendant” leaving his home several blocks away from the scene of the crime on a bicycle. However, no testimony was elicited that the witnesses were shown a photograph taken from the video of the defendant’s home, let alone that the witnesses identified the person depicted in that video as the person they saw holding a gun or riding a bicycle after the shots were fired. The mere fact that a person believed to be the defendant was observed riding a bicycle several blocks away from the scene of the crime, shortly before the shooting, is too innocuous, standing alone, to support a finding of probable cause … . Further, Henn’s conclusory testimony that the defendant “became the prime suspect” based on “[v]ideos and canvasses conducted,” without further details, was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of probable cause … . Consequently, the People failed to establish that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, and thus, the court should have suppressed, as fruits of the unlawful arrest, the lineup identification testimony and the defendant’s statements made to law enforcement officials on October 24, 2011 … . People v Kamenev, 2020 NY Slip Op 00301, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL WHEN HE PLED GUILTY IN 2007 THAT IF HE STAYED OUT OF TROUBLE WHILE ON PROBATION HE WOULD NOT BE DEPORTED, HOWEVER DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE GONE TO TRIAL, INCLUDING HIS UNDISPUTED STRONG DESIRE TO STAY IN THE US, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Martinez) was entitled to a hearing on his CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his 2007 judgment of conviction. At the time defendant pled guilty the court warned him there could be immigration consequences, but defense counsel told him he wouldn’t have to worry about deportation if he stayed out of trouble while on probation. In fact, however, deportation was mandatory. Supreme Court denied the motion based in part on defendant’s motivation for it, i.e., the expansion of his taxi business in Massachusetts. The First Department noted that plaintiff’s current motivation for the motion to vacate is irrelevant. The matter was sent back for a hearing in front of a different judge:

In the context of a guilty plea, the ultimate question of prejudice is whether there was a reasonable probability that a reasonable person in a defendant’s circumstances would have gone to trial if given constitutionally adequate advice … . A defendant must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational … . In that regard, appropriate factors to be weighed include, among others, evidence of defendant’s incentive, at the time of his plea, to remain in the United States rather than his native country; his respective family and employment ties at the time of his plea, to the United States, as compared to his country of origin; the strength of the People’s case; and defendant’s sentencing exposure … . In answering the prejudice question, judges should be cognizant that a noncitizen defendant confronts a very different calculus than confronts a United States citizen … . For a noncitizen defendant, “preserving [his] right to remain in the United States may be more important to [him] than any jail sentence”… . Thus, a determination of whether it would be rational for a defendant to reject a plea offer “must take into account the particular circumstances informing the defendant’s desire to remain in the United States” … .

Significantly, on the record before this Court, there is reason to believe that Martinez would have given paramount importance to avoiding deportation, if he had known that it was more than a mere possibility, but was an unavoidable consequence of his plea to an aggravated felony. Indeed, evidence regarding Martinez’s background completely supports his current assertion that his main focus has been always to remain in the United States. This much is undisputed: his long history in the United States, his efforts to become a citizen, his family circumstances, and his gainful employment in Massachusetts, all signal his strong connection to, and desire to remain in, the United States … . People v Martinez, 2020 NY Slip Op 00252, First Dept 1-14-20

 

DEFENDANT’S DISCARDING A BAG OF MARIJUANA AS HE WAS BEING PURSUED BY POLICE FOR AN OPEN-CONTAINER VIOLATION CONSTITUTED ATTEMPTED TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that defendant’s discarding a bag of marijuana as he was being pursued by a police officer for violating the city’s open-container law constituted attempted tampering with physical evidence, not tampering with physical evidence:

Here, the charge of tampering with physical evidence was based on the defendant’s act of discarding the plastic bag containing marijuana as he was being pursued by Officer Scuadroni for violating the City’s open-container law. Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s act of discarding the bag did not constitute an act of concealment within the meaning of Penal Law § 215.40(2). Nevertheless, since the defendant “engage[d] in conduct that tends to effect, and comes dangerously near to accomplishing, an act of concealment intended to suppress the physical evidence” … , there is legally sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of attempted tampering with physical evidence (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 215.40[2 …). Accordingly, we reduce the defendant’s conviction of tampering with physical evidence to attempted tampering with physical evidence … . People v Zachary, 2020 NY Slip Op 00165, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

SENTENCE DEEMED HARSH AND EXCESSIVE; REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reduced the defendant’s sentence, noting it was defendant’s first conviction, her strong family and community ties, her long employment history and her mental health history. “The defendant was convicted of two counts each of rape in the third degree, criminal sexual act in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child arising out of two separate incidents wherein the defendant, who was a paraprofessional at a school which the 16½-year-old victim attended, took the victim to a hotel and had sexual intercourse and oral sex with him:”

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment … convicting her of rape in the third degree (two counts), criminal sexual act in the third degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and sentencing her to determinate terms of imprisonment of 3 years on each of the counts of rape in the third degree (counts 1 and 4) and criminal sexual act in the third degree (counts 2 and 5), to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of 10 years, and a determinate term of imprisonment of 1 year on each of the counts of endangering the welfare of a child (counts 3 and 6), with the sentences imposed on counts 1, 2, and 3 to run concurrently with each other, and the sentences imposed on counts 4, 5, and 6 to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the sentences imposed on counts 1, 2, and 3. * * *

The sentence imposed, which is at the upper end of the legal sentencing range, is harsh and excessive … . Accordingly, exercising our interest of justice jurisdiction, we modify the sentence to the extent indicated herein … . People v Thompson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00164, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH AN ALTERNATE; NO SHOWING JUROR WAS ‘UNAVAILABLE’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPL 270.35; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge should not have discharged a juror and replaced her with an alternate after the proof had closed and before summations. The juror was not “unavailable” within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 270.35:

… [A]fter both sides had rested but before summations, the Supreme Court, over the defendant’s objection, excused juror No. 10 and replaced her with an alternate on the basis that juror No. 10 had to travel to Maryland for an evening work obligation the next day, which was a Friday. The day after the alternate was substituted, the jury found the defendant guilty of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. …

… [T]he defendant’s statutory and constitutional rights were violated when, over the defendant’s objection, the court excused Juror No. 10 and substituted an alternate juror. The record does not demonstrate that Juror No. 10 was unavailable as that term is used in CPL 270.35 … . Juror No. 10’s work obligation did not render her unavailable for jury service, as her own convenience or potential financial hardship are insufficient to render her unavailable under CPL 270.35 … . People v Alleyne, 2020 NY Slip Op 00154, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE IMPROPERLY RELIED ON CPL 440.30 (d) WHICH ONLY APPLIES IF THE MOTION IS BASED SOLELY ON AN ALLEGATION BY THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his judgment of conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. There was a question of fact whether defense counsel was aware he could call an expert to testify defendant, who had ingested drugs, did not have the required mental state (depraved indifference). The First Department noted Supreme Court may have improperly relied on Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.30 (d) which applies only if the motion is based solely on an allegation by the defendant (not the case here):

While the motion court had a sound basis for its conclusion that there was “no reasonable possibility” that defendant’s trial counsel “was unaware that he could call an expert to testify about the defendant’s state of mind,” we find that this was not an adequate basis for denying the motion without a hearing in these circumstances. First, to the extent the court may have been relying on CPL 440.30(d), that section permits summary denial when “there is no reasonable possibility that such an allegation is true,” but it applies only when the allegation “is made solely by the defendant.” That is not the case here, where the allegation at issue regarding trial counsel’s statements was made by defendant’s motion counsel based on his own knowledge.

Nor do we believe that this is a case such as People v Samandarov (13 NY3d 433 [2009]), where the lack of merit of a CPL 440.10 motion could be determined on the parties’ submissions, despite it being “theoretically possible that a hearing could show otherwise” (id. at 440). Here, while the court’s perception may well be borne out, there are issues of fact sufficient to warrant a hearing … . People v Martin, 2020 NY Slip Op 00067, First Dept 1-7-20

 

,

THE INDICTMENT CHARGING PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT ALLEGED DEFENDANT POSSESSED LESS THAN 25 GRAMS OF MARIJUANA WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF ‘DANGEROUS CONTRABAND,” AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the indictment, charging defendant with promoting prison contraband in the first degree was jurisdictionally defective because it alleged possession of less that 25 grams of marijuana:

Defendant asserts that the indictment is jurisdictionally defective based on the Court of Appeals’ decision in People v Finley (10 NY3d 647 [2003]). In that case, the Court held that the possession of a small amount of marihuana, specifically less than 25 grams, did not, absent aggravating circumstances, constitute dangerous contraband within the meaning of Penal Law §§ 205.00 (4) and 205.25 as is necessary to support the charge of promoting prison contraband in the first degree … . Defendant contends that there is no valid basis in the indictment for this charge because he possessed less than 25 grams of marihuana. The People concede that this is a jurisdictional defect warranting reversal of the judgment of conviction. In addition, defendant requests that the indictment be dismissed in its entirety, and the People consent to such relief given that defendant’s guilty plea satisfied both charges contained therein. Accordingly, based upon our review of the record, the case law and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the judgment of conviction must be reversed, thereby vacating the plea and sentence, and that the indictment must be dismissed in its entirety. People v Lawrence, 2020 NY Slip Op 00004, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER RE THE DEFENDANT’S RISK ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA); THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Count Court had not issued a written order with respect to the defendant’s risk assessment under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) and therefor the appeal was not properly before the court:

Following a hearing at which the People advocated for an upward departure, County Court granted the request and classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender with a sexually violent offender designation. Defendant appeals.

It is a statutory requirement that County Court “render an order setting forth its determinations and findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n [3] … ). That written order then must be “entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable” (CPLR 2220 [a] …).

Although the record before us contains a decision of County Court that sets forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court did not issue a written order and the risk assessment instrument does not contain the “so ordered” language so as to constitute an appealable order. Absent any order by the court, this appeal is not properly before us and must be dismissed … . People v Johnson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00006, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE INFORMED AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA TO A SEX OFFENSE THAT HE OR SHE MAY BE SUBJECT TO A MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 CIVIL ACTION AS THE RELEASE DATE APPROACHES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant, a sex offender who was found to suffer from a mental abnormality after Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 trial, was not entitled specific performance of his plea agreement, which made no mention of the of potential Mental Hygiene Law proceedings:

Respondent next challenges Supreme Court’s denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss the petition inasmuch as his 1997 plea agreement is a legal and binding contract — one that entitled him to specific performance. Proceedings pursuant to the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act “are expansive civil proceedings, which are entirely separate from and independent of the original criminal action” … . Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that trial courts are required to advise defendants who plead guilty regarding the direct consequences of such plea, but they have no obligation to iterate every collateral consequence of the conviction” … . As relevant here, “the potential for either civil confinement or supervision pursuant to [the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act] is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea and, therefore, the current state of the law does not require that defendants be informed of it prior to entering a plea of guilty” … . As such, we discern no error in Supreme Court’s denial of respondent’s request for specific performance. Nor are we persuaded by respondent’s assertion that specific performance is appropriate because the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 litigation ensued following the expiration of his sentence, as the article 10 proceeding commenced upon the date that the petition was filed, prior to respondent’s release date … . Matter of State of New York v Robert G., 2020 NY Slip Op 00009, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

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