You are here: / Criminal Law

HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS APPLIES TO A JUDGE’S FAILURE TO CHARGE THE JURY IN ACCORDANCE WITH A RULING MADE PRIOR TO SUMMATION, CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a concurring opinion and an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, determined that, in the two cases before the court, the trial court’s reversing, after summation, its pre-summation position on a jury instruction was error, but in both cases was harmless error. The opinion is fact-specific and cannot not be fairly summarized here. In Mairena the judge, after agreeing to do so before summation, failed to charge the jury that defendant could not be convicted of manslaughter unless the jury found the fatal injury was caused by a box cutter or a knife. And in Altamirano, after denying the defense request for a jury charge on the innocent possession of a weapon prior to summation, the judge so charged the jury after summation:

In short, Miller [70 NY2d 903] , Greene [75 NY2d 875] and Smalling [29 NY3d 981] have consistently been applied by the appellate courts of this state and continue to be entitled to full precedential force. In those decisions, this Court meant what it expressly stated: a trial court’s error in reversing a prior charging decision after summations have been completed is subject to harmless error analysis. …

We conclude that the evidence of guilt in both of the instant cases was overwhelming. Thus, as in Miller, Greene and Smalling, whether the error was harmless turns on the question of whether defendants were prejudiced. Although those cases do not clarify whether the constitutional or nonconstitutional standard applies in evaluating prejudice, we need not resolve that question today because, under either standard, the error in each case was harmless. People v Mairena, 2019 NY Slip Op 08978, CtApp 12-17-19

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF PETIT LARCENY; THE VALUE OF THE STOLEN CELL PHONES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED TOGETHER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROOF THE CELL PHONES WERE OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined: (1) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request the jury be charged with the lesser included offense of petit larceny in this robbery case involving the theft of cell phones: and (2), the value of the cell phones should not have been added together because there was no proof the phones were owned by the same owner:

Defendant was charged with thefts of cell phones from four wireless phone stores. As to one incident, it was alleged defendant forcibly stole a cell phone in that his showing of a knife to the store employee constituted a threat of force and was perceived by the employee as a threat. While the defense conceded that defendant stole a cell phone, it denied any force was used. Nevertheless, at the charge conference prior to jury deliberations, defense counsel failed to ask for submission of the charge of petit larceny. Since the existing record clearly establishes that this was a mistake, rather than a strategic decision, no CPL 440.10 motion is necessary. When counsel asked for submission of the lesser included offense in the midst of jury deliberations, he expressly admitted that he had been “remiss” in not making a timely request. In any event, counsel could not have been employing an all-or-nothing strategy as to the robbery as argued by the People. This strategy would have made no sense, because the defense was conceding that defendant was guilty of petit larceny as to the other incidents and was already inviting convictions of several misdemeanors. …

Defendant is also entitled to dismissal of the grand larceny charge, which was based upon the improper aggregation of the value of phones taken from two separate AT & T stores on two different days. The People failed to prove that the stores, and the phones located therein, had the same “owner” for the purpose of aggregating multiple thefts … . There was no evidence that these stores were owned by the same corporation, as opposed to, for example, dealerships separately owned and authorized to sell AT & T wireless products and services ,,, , People v Camacho, 2019 NY Slip Op 08944, First Dept 12-12-19

 

, ,

PROSECUTOR’S UNTRUE CLAIM, MADE IN SUMMATION, THAT DEFENDANT’S DNA WAS FOUND ON THE WEAPON USED IN THE SHOOTING REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the prosecutor’s untrue claim, made in summation and immediately objected to, that defendant’s DNA was found on the weapon used to shoot the victim, required a new trial:

… [T]he prosecutor’s comments during summation that the defendant’s DNA was found on the weapon used to shoot the victim had no evidentiary support in the record. The remarks, which were promptly objected to by defense counsel, were highly prejudicial and ultimately deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial … , particularly as the Supreme Court refused to give any curative instruction or grant a mistrial based upon the prosecutor’s improper comments. People v Day, 2019 NY Slip Op 08858, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

THE INCLUSION OF EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION ON THE VERDICT SHEET WHICH DID NOT PROVIDE ANY SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE WAS HARMLESS ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined, although it was error to include extraneous information on the verdict sheet, i.e., that the defendant had authorized the verdict sheet, the error was harmless:

The Court of Appeals has “held that it is reversible error, not subject to harmless error analysis, to provide a jury in a criminal case with a verdict sheet that contains annotations not authorized by CPL 310.20 (2)” … . Moreover, “[t]he basic principle is that nothing of substance can be included that the statute does not authorize” … . * * *

The extraneous statement was not part of the questions posed to the jury; rather, it was at the end of the verdict sheet. It did not change any of the questions to the jury. … [W]e find that the submission to the jury of the … verdict sheet with the statement asserting that defendant authorized it, without his signature, was not reversible error, because the extraneous statement gave no substantive information to the jury about the case and merely indicated that defendant saw the verdict sheet, was aware of his charges and was represented by an attorney … . People v Stover, 2019 NY Slip Op 08734, Third Dept 12-5-19

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH COUNTY COURT ISSUED, ENTERED AND FILED A DECISION ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE INDICATING THE DECISION WAS A JUDGMENT OR AN ORDER; IN ADDITION, THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT DID NOT INCLUDE “SO ORDERED” LANGUAGE; THEREFORE THERE WAS NO APPEALABLE ORDER BEFORE THE COURT AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department dismissed the appeal of County Court’s SORA risk assessment because County Court did not issue an appealable order:

Following a hearing, County Court rejected defendant’s challenge to certain assessed points, adjudicated him as a risk level three sex offender and designated him as a sexually violent offender. Defendant appeals.

An appealable order must be in writing (see CPLR 2219 [a] …), and must contain language that identifies the document as “either a judgment or order of the court”… . Consistent with these mandates, the Sex Offender Registration Act … requires that County Court must “render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based”… . That written order must then be “entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable” (CPLR 2220 [a] …).

Here, County Court issued a written decision which was subsequently entered and filed. However, the decision contains no language indicating that it is an order or judgment, and it does not appear that a written order was entered and filed … . Moreover, the risk assessment instrument does not contain “so ordered” language so that it may constitute an appealable order … . Accordingly, this appeal is not properly before this Court and must be dismissed … . People v Porter, 2019 NY Slip Op 08743, Third Dept 12-5-19

 

,

PROOF OF OCCASIONAL DRUG USE IN THE REMOTE PAST AND REFERRALS FOR ALLEGED DRUG USE IN PRISON SEVERAL YEARS AGO WAS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE ASSESSMENT OF 15 POINTS FOR A HISTORY OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been assessed 15 points for his history of drug and alcohol abuse. The evidence of drug use was remote in time and drug use was not an aspect of the offense:

Defendant reported that, prior to moving to this area in 1987, he had used cocaine once during his incarceration in Alabama and speed while working in the south, but denied any recent drug use. The information regarding defendant’s use of drugs is in the distant past and excessively remote … and, in any event, does not establish a pattern of drug abuse as contemplated by the Sex Offender Registration Act risk assessment guidelines … . In addition, the case summary reflects that, upon being screened by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, drug use was not an issue of concern with regard to defendant and he was not, at that time, referred to any alcohol or drug treatment program.

The remaining evidence with regard to defendant’s history of drug or alcohol abuse is the general reference to defendant twice being referred to alcohol and drug abuse treatment programs during his 26 years of incarceration for the instant offense “presumptively” due to defendant receiving five tier III disciplinary sanctions for drug use. The most recent referral was several years ago, in 2012. We find that this is insufficient, by itself, to establish a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse by defendant … . People v Brown, 2019 NY Slip Op 08746, Third Dept 12-5-19

 

,

SEARCH WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE WAS OVERLY BROAD; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined that the search warrant issued for defendant’s cell phone was  overly broad in that it authorized a search going back eight months before the conduct alleged in the warrant:

The search warrant for defendant’s phones was overbroad. The application alleged that, on September 1, 2016, defendant sent texts to a 13 year old making indecent proposals, and called her on the same day. The warrant authorized examination of defendant’s internet usage from January 1 to September 13, 2016, and also authorized, without a time limitation, examination of essentially all the other data on defendant’s phones. This failed to satisfy the particularity requirement of both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, § 12 of New York’s Constitution … .

The pivotal question here is whether there was probable cause that evidence of the crimes specified in the warrant would be found in the broad areas specified. Notably, the warrant application alleged two discrete crimes and specified conduct that “began” on September 1, 2016, and, as far as the available information indicated, occurred entirely on that date. While it was of course possible that defendant’s phone contained evidence of the specified offenses that predated September 1, there were no specific allegations to that effect. …

The information available to the warrant-issuing court did not support a reasonable belief that evidence of the crimes specified in the warrant would be found in all of the “locations” within defendant’s cell phone to which the warrant authorized access — for example, in defendant’s browsing history six or seven months before September 1, 2016, or in his emails, the examination of which was authorized without any time restriction … . People v Thompson, 2019 NY Slip Op 08772, First Dept 12-5-19

 

COURTROOM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLOSED TO FAMILY MEMBERS DURING THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER’S TESTIMONY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, ordering an new trial, determined the defendant’s family members should not have been excluded from the courtroom duing the undercover officer’s testimony:

The People concede that the trial court erred in excluding defendant’s family members from some parts of the trial … . Here, the People failed to show specifically that defendant’s family posed a threat to the undercover officer’s safety. The court’s error requires reversal of the conviction … .

The People acknowledge that a harmless error/lack of prejudice analysis does not apply to courtroom closure errors. Nevertheless, relying on nonbinding Second Circuit case law, they argue that reversal is not warranted because the exclusion of defendant’s family was so trivial as not to implicate defendant’s right to a public trial (see e.g. Smith v Hollins, 448 F3d 533 [2d Cir 2006]). We need not decide whether a triviality exception exists under State law, because even applying that standard, the closure here cannot be characterized as trivial. Defendant’s family was kept out of the courtroom during the entirety of the direct examination, and part of the cross-examination, of an undercover officer who was one of the People’s key witnesses. That undercover was one of the officers involved in the narcotics operation that formed the basis of the charge against defendant. He set up the meeting to purchase the drugs, gave the buy money to defendant’s accomplice, and received crack cocaine in return. Thus, the exclusion of defendant’s family members “from the crux of the [People’s] case” was not trivial … . People v Ruffin, 2019 NY Slip Op 08771, First Dept 12-5-19

 

,

WITHOUT PROOF DEFENDANT USED, ATTEMPTED TO USE, OR THREATENED TO USE THE BOX CUTTER FOUND IN HIS POCKET, THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BOX CUTTER MET THE DEFINITION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, reversing defendant’s criminal possession of a weapon conviction, determined the proof that defendant simply possessed a box cutter was not enough:

While feeling around defendant’s waist, the officer felt a metal object in defendant’s shorts. Upon further search, the officer saw the butt end of a box cutter sticking out of the fly of defendant’s underwear. The razor of the box cutter was in its sheath and not exposed. He later tested the box cutter to see if it was sharp, and he was able to cut paper with it. Officer McKeever never saw defendant holding the box cutter and did not see him argue with or threaten anyone. * * *

As the jury was charged, a “dangerous instrument” is “any instrument, article or substance, . . . which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” … . An object “becomes a dangerous instrument when it is used in a manner which renders it readily capable of causing serious physical injury” … .

Here, there was no proof that defendant used the box cutter, attempted to use it, or threatened to use it as required under the plain terms of the statute in order for it to be a dangerous instrument … . People v Knowles, 2019 NY Slip Op 08770, First Dept 12-5-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS UNLIKELY TO REOFFEND; THEREFORE, DESPITE THE SERIOUSNESS OF HIS SEX OFFENSES, HE WAS ENTITLED TO A REDUCTION OF HIS RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO ONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying the SORA court, in a comprehensive, full-fledged opinion by Justice Austin, determined defendant sex offender was entitled to a downward modification of his risk assessment from level three to level one:

The defendant’s submissions demonstrated that, through his long-term sobriety, strong family support, faith-based and law abiding lifestyle, continuous employment despite his numerous physical disabilities and age, his risk of reoffending is so diminished that a further reduction from his current risk level two to risk level one is appropriate … . * * *

… [I]f a defendant served his or her sentence, rehabilitated himself or herself, and demonstrated no actual likelihood of reoffending, a reduction to a risk level one classification from a level three classification should be a possibility. …

In modifying the Supreme Court’s order which reduced the defendant’s sex offender risk level classification from three to two, and thereby granting the petition to further reduce the defendant’s sex offender risk level designation to a level one, we are not signaling a departure from our strict interpretation of the Guidelines and the legislative history of SORA. Rather, we are following the law, and the policy underlying it, as it applies to this defendant. That is, it is not out of sympathy for his physical condition nor with a blind eye to the defendant’s significant criminal past that we render our determination. Rather, we consider these as well as all of the factors—positive and negative—presented at the hearing on his petition for a downward modification in deciding the singular question presented: Did the defendant establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the risk he poses to the community as a convicted sex offender warrants a downward modification to level one? We answer that question in the affirmative.

To hold otherwise ignores the sincere, positive strides the defendant has made to be a productive, positive member of society. By using the disturbing nature of one’s crime as the tipping point in the analysis of a petition such as the one before this Court comes dangerously close to saying, if not holding, that once one has committed a sex crime and has been designated a sex offender level, there is no way he or she can ever be rehabilitated to a legally sufficient extent to warrant a downward modification to the lowest level of supervision. If that were so, then the cited portions of the Guidelines and Correction Law § 168-o(2), which allow annual reevaluation of a defendant’s risk level after it is initially established, would be rendered without meaning and illusory. People v Davis, 2019 NY Slip Op 08720, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

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