You are here: / Criminal Law
,

FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENSE ABOUT A SECOND EYEWITNESS TO THE SHOOTING WAS A REVERSIBLE BRADY VIOLATION, THE MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, granted defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction and ordered a new trial, based upon the People’s failure to notify the defense of a second eyewitness to the shooting (a Brady violation). The opinion is too detailed factually and too comprehensive legally to fully summarize here:

Several months after the trial concluded, the assistant district attorney who tried the case received an inter-office email attaching a report from a detective who had interviewed an eyewitness to the shooting. The ADA and another prosecutor had themselves interviewed the witness before the trial, having learned that a man who had been arrested for a drug sale near the Polo Grounds told a detective that he had seen the Philips shooting. The prosecutors spoke to the eyewitness in the detective’s presence, and no one took notes. Both prosecutors recalled only that the witness said he saw a man in brown clothes go down the 110 step-staircase, shoot Phillips, and go back up the steps. The ADA concluded that the statement was “cumulative” and did not disclose it to the defense. However, after receiving the email, he notified defendant’s trial counsel about the witness, and attached the report, which he stated he had not known had ever been created. * * *

Defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that it was obtained in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights, including his rights under Brady. Defendant noted that the prosecution failed to disclose that it had interviewed a second eyewitness two years before trial and failed to disclose the report. Defendant’s trial lawyer submitted an affirmation in which he explained how timely disclosure of the information would have affected his preparation of the defense, including a misidentification defense. His investigator also submitted an affidavit in which he stated that timely disclosure would have been valuable because the statement contained “several strong leads.” For example, he would have spoken to the eyewitness before his memory faded or he became uncooperative, and he would have located the other two people who were sitting with the eyewitness. In addition, the rumor that Phillips robbed Social Security recipients was another lead that would have caused the investigator to seek out people not otherwise on the defense “radar” for potential leads about Phillips or those who wanted to kill him. People v McGhee, 2019 NY Slip Op 09116, First Dept 12-19-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PURSUED AND DETAINED BASED UPON HIS DRINKING FROM A CONTAINER IN A PAPER BAG AND RUNNING INSIDE A NEARBY BUILDING; THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD WAS PROPERLY INFERRED FROM DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF BOTH REAL AND COUNTERFEIT BILLS, KEPT SEPARATELY ON HIS PERSON (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined defendant was properly pursued and detained after a police officer saw him on the street drinking from a container inside a paper bag and then saw him run inside a nearby building as the officer approached. The Court further determined the intent to defraud could be inferred from the defendant’s possession of counterfeit bills. The defendant had both counterfeit and real money on his person, kept separately. The issues were succinctly described in the dissent:

From the dissent:

The majority lauds the hot pursuit and forcible detention of Clinton Britt, a man drinking a Lime-A-Rita&TLRtrade; wrapped in a brown paper bag in Times Square shortly before midnight, and his subsequent conviction for intending to spend counterfeit money absent any indication that he attempted or planned to use it, simply because it was found rubber-banded separately from his real money when he was searched upon arrest. Both are mistakes.

The first — let’s chase and physically detain people drinking from unseen containers in brown paper bags — is perhaps understandable because of the tremendous difficulty inherent in the mis-application of our De Bour test in many real-world situations. The sad consequence of that mistake is a regression from the legislative and prosecutorial progress eschewing policing based on stereotypes, returning us to the world of broken windows — where police pursue quality of life violations that disproportionately affect the poor (not merely those committing the infractions, but their families, neighbors and communities).

The second — let’s equate the separation of real from counterfeit money with the intent to defraud — is inexplicable. It overturns our clear holding in People v Bailey (13 NY3d 67 [2009]), by contravening the most fundamental proposition of evidence: a fact is not evidence unless it makes the disputed issue more likely to be true than it otherwise would be. Put simply, if you knew you had counterfeit money on your person and did not want to use it, you would keep it separate from your real money. That [defendant] kept his real and fake money separate says nothing about his intent to use it to defraud, deceive or injure anyone, which is a statutory requirement under Penal Law § 170.30. People v Britt, 2019 NY Slip Op 09060, CtApp 12-19-19

 

,

THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY REOPENING THE SUPPRESSION HEARING AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD RESTED TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO PRESENT AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS; THE “ONE FULL OPPORTUNITY” DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY IN THE “PRE-RULING” STAGE OF A SUPPRESSION HEARING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, held the suppression court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the People to reopen the suppression hearing to present another witness after the People had rested. The court subsequently denied the motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals framed the issue around the “one full opportunity” rule which precludes reopening a hearing in other contexts and decided not to extend the rule to the “”pre-ruling” stage of a suppression hearing:

In Havelka [45 NY2d 636], we applied the “one full opportunity” rule to a holding by an appellate court overturning the decision of the suppression court. In Kevin W [22 NY3d 287}. we applied the same rule to the suppression court’s decision to reopen the hearing after its ruling on the merits of the motion. Defendant now asks us to apply the rule at a point still earlier in the process, similarly restricting the suppression court’s discretion before any decision is made. This we decline to do.

A basic concern underlying both Havelka and Kevin W. is finality, described as the “haunt[ing] . . . specter of renewed proceedings” after the defendant initially has prevailed … . We explained in Havelka that allowing the People to present additional evidence at a new hearing would render success at the original suppression hearing “nearly meaningless” … . The People, we said, should not get “a second chance to succeed where once they tried and failed” … . However, that concern is absent where no decision on the motion has been rendered by the hearing court: no victory will be rendered “nearly meaningless.”

The second issue of concern weighing in favor of the “one full opportunity” rule — the risk of improperly tailored testimony at the reopened proceedings — is significantly lower where the People do not have a formal decision from either an appellate court or the hearing court. People v Cook, 2019 NY Slip Op 09059, CtApp 12-19-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT, A NONCITIZEN, WAS TOLD DURING HIS PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE DEPORTATION-ELIGIBLE B MISDEMEANOR; WHILE THE LEAVE APPLICATION WAS PENDING THE LAW WAS CHANGED TO AFFORD A PERSON IN DEFENDANT’S POSITION THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; THE MAJORITY UPHELD THE GUILTY PLEA; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE PLEA SHOULD NOT STAND (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the accusatory instrument accusing defendant of criminal contempt was sufficient and defendant’s guilty plea was voluntary. During the plea colloquy defendant, an noncitizen, was told he did not have the right to a jury trial on the deportation-eligible B misdemeanor. While defendant’s leave application to the Court of Appeals was pending, the court decided People v Suazo, 32 NY3d 491, affording persons in defendant’s position the right to a jury trial. The dissent argued the guilty plea should be vacated:

From the dissent:

In accordance with the law at the time of defendant Sixtus Udeke’s plea allocution, the trial court told defendant, a noncitizen, that he had no right to a trial by jury for a deportation-eligible Class B misdemeanor. While defendant’s leave application to this Court was pending, we issued a new rule in People v Suazo (32 NY3d 491 [2018]), recognizing precisely the right defendant was told he did not have during the plea colloquy: that noncitizens like defendant have the right to a trial by jury for crimes carrying the potential penalty of deportation. That rule applies retroactively to defendant’s appeal, and it leads to the conclusion that his guilty plea is invalid because he could not have knowingly and intelligently waived a right the court said he did not have. Therefore, I dissent from the majority decision that the guilty plea should stand. People v Udeke, 2019 NY Slip Op 09057, CtApp 12-19-19

 

,

AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A DIRECT APPEAL OR A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PURSUANT TO CPL 44O (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied because the issues could have been raised in a direct appeal or in a CPL 440 motion to vacate the conviction:

With regard to petitioner’s claim that, pursuant to Penal Law § 70.35, his one-year jail sentences merged with and should have been ordered to run concurrently with his indeterminate sentence, “[h]abeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for raising claims that could have been raised on direct appeal or in the context of a CPL article 440 motion, even if they are jurisdictional in nature” … . Petitioner’s contentions regarding his sentences, including their legality and whether they merged under Penal Law § 70.35, could have been raised on direct appeal or in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 … . As we perceive no basis to depart from traditional orderly procedure, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied petitioner’s application. People ex rel. McCray v Favro, 2019 NY Slip Op 09065, Third Dept 12-19-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF ATTEMPTED ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF 30 POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 9; DEFENDANT WAS THEREFORE A PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE; HAD THE PEOPLE KNOWN DEFENDANT WAS PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE THEY WOULD HAVE SOUGHT AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s conviction of attempted endangering the welfare of a child did not meet the criteria for assessing 30 points under risk factor 9, and therefore defendant should have been assessed at a presumptive level one. The People argued that had the defendant been assessed at a presumptive level one they would have sought an upward department based on aggravating factors. The matter was remitted for a new determination:

Risk factor 9 requires the assessment of 30 points where “[t]he offender has a prior criminal history that includes a conviction or adjudication for the class A felonies of Murder, Kidnaping or Arson, a violent felony, a misdemeanor sex crime, or endangering the welfare of a child, or any adjudication for a sex offense” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [hereinafter Guidelines], risk factor 9 [2006]). Here, as the defendant contends, the Supreme Court should not have assessed 30 points under risk factor 9 based on his prior conviction for attempted endangering the welfare of a child inasmuch as that conviction was neither for a felony, nor for a “sex offense” (Correction Law § 168-a[2]), “nor a conviction for actually endangering the welfare of a child” … . Accordingly, only 5 points could be assigned under risk factor 9 for “[p]rior history/no sex crimes or felonies,” resulting in a total score of less than 70 points, a presumptive risk level one … . People v Lewis, 2019 NY Slip Op 09045, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, ,

PROOF OF MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL CONTACT INSUFFICIENT; RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s risk assessment to level one, determined the proof of multiple instances of sexual contact was insufficient:

… [T]he People failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to risk factor 4. Although the People submitted evidence, in the form of the defendant’s statements, that he engaged in sexual contact with the victim on three or four occasions, they failed to submit any evidence as to when these instances of sexual contact occurred relative to one another, so as to demonstrate that such instances were separated in time by at least 24 hours, as the People claimed … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have assessed 20 points under risk factor 4. People v Jarama, 2019 NY Slip Op 09044, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, ,

IRRELEVANT PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ADMITTED SOLELY TO AROUSE THE EMOTIONS OF THE JURY; THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS IN SUMMATION WERE SIMILARLY IMPROPER; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the photographs of the complainant’s genitals and anus were irrelevant and should not have been admitted in this sex-offense case. In addition, the court criticized the prosecutor’s remarks in summation (unpreserved errors):

“Photographic evidence should be excluded only if its sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant” … . Here, the complainant’s pediatrician, who was called as a witness by the prosecutor, testified that there were no injuries to the complainant’s genitals or anus, and that she did not expect to see any injury based upon the complainant’s report. Nevertheless, the prosecutor then asked the pediatrician to approach the jurors and display the photographs to them. Under the circumstances of this case, the photographs were irrelevant, and served no purpose other than to inflame the emotions of the jury and to introduce into the trial an impermissible sympathy factor … . The error was then compounded when the prosecutor argued in summation that the complainant had to “get on a table and open up her legs and have her genitals photographed to be shown to 15 strangers . . . What did she gain out of this? Nothing.” The improper admission of the photographs cannot be deemed harmless under the circumstances of this case … .

Since there must be a new trial, we note that, although the issue is unpreserved for appellate review, the prosecutor engaged in multiple instances of improper conduct during summation … . For instance, the prosecutor attempted to arouse the sympathies of the jurors … . Additionally, while discussing the character of the defendant, who was a church pastor at the time of trial, the prosecutor referenced the sexual abuse scandals involving the Catholic Church and Orthodox Jewish communities. The prosecutor also pointed out that during jury selection, a prospective juror expressed that she did not feel comfortable sitting on this case because of all the priests who have gotten away with child abuse, and that another prospective juror stated that a family member was raped by a member of the clergy. “[I]n summing up to the jury, counsel must stay within the four corners of the evidence and avoid irrelevant and inflammatory comments which have a tendency to prejudice the jury against the accused” … . People v Lewis, 2019 NY Slip Op 09023, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

,

MATTER REMITTED FOR A REOPENED SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE THAT THE VEHICLE STOP MAY HAVE BEEN BASED UPON INFORMATION FROM AN ANONYMOUS BYSTANDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter for a reopened suppression hearing, determined the hearing was warranted by new information that the stop of defendant’s vehicle may have been based on information from an anonymous source. The defendant had already been convicted of attempted robbery twice after a reversal:

We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court should have granted his motion to reopen the suppression hearing on those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence recovered as a result of the stop of the livery car and the identification evidence that followed the stop pursuant to CPL 710.40(4). CPL 710.40(4) permits a court to reopen a suppression hearing if additional pertinent facts have been discovered which the defendant could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the original suppression motion … . The additional facts discovered need not necessarily be “outcome-determinative or essential'”; instead, they must be “pertinent” in that they “would materially affect or have affected” the earlier suppression ruling … . Here, the revelation that the livery car description may have come from an anonymous bystander who interjected while translating between the complainant and the sergeant at the scene was previously unknown, and because the sergeant did not previously testify in the case, could not have been discovered with due diligence by the defendant. The information that the livery car description came from an unidentified and anonymous bystander would have affected the earlier suppression determination by placing squarely before the court questions regarding the identity and reliability of the person who described the livery car … . People v Dunbar, 2019 NY Slip Op 09018, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WAS HANDLED PROPERLY, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY OF THE JUROR TO OBTAIN AN UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCE THE JUROR COULD BE FAIR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum, over a three-judge partial dissent, determined the trial court properly handled a for cause challenge to a prospective juror:

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror pursuant to CPL 270 (1) (b). When defense counsel directly asked the prospective juror, “if you don’t hear from [defendant], you don’t hear him speak, are you going to hold that against him,” she responded, “I don’t believe that I would.” This response directly refuted any notion that the prospective juror would “hold” defendant’s failure to testify “against him,” i.e., that she would be biased in rendering a decision. Viewing this statement “in totality and in context” … , the exchange did not, in the first instance, demonstrate “preexisting opinions that might indicate bias” … . Thus, the trial court was not required to inquire further “to obtain unequivocal assurance that [the juror] could be fair and impartial” … . People v Patterson, 2019 NY Slip Op 08982, CtApp 12-17-19

 

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