You are here: / Criminal Law

COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED OF JURORS WHETHER THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT NOT BEING PAID BY THEIR EMPLOYERS DURING JURY DUTY WOULD AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO RENDER AN IMPARTIAL VERDICT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the trial judge should have conducted further inquiry when three jurors stated that they could not continue deliberating because they were not being paid by their employers for the days they were on jury duty:

The court should have granted the defense request for inquiries into whether the financial pressure the jurors were experiencing had any bearing on their ability to deliberate fairly. In People v Hines (191 AD2d 274 [1st Dept 1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 1074 [1993]), this Court held that although “financial hardship is generally not a sufficient reason to warrant discharge when the trial is near completion,” the trial court “should have ascertained whether the juror’s financial difficulties would have affected his ability to deliberate impartially” (id. at 276). Similarly, in People v Cook (52 AD3d 255, 256 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 735 [2008]), we observed that “a juror’s personal or financial inconvenience alone would be insufficient to establish the requisite manifest necessity” for a mistrial, but we went on to state that the fact that “the juror was unable to declare her continued ability to deliberate fairly” weighed in favor of a mistrial.

Here, the jury’s note raised the possibility that one or more of the jurors referred to was unqualified, and the fact that they did not specifically volunteer, in their colloquies with the court, that financial pressures might compromise their impartiality did not obviate the necessity of an inquiry. People v Alexander, 2019 NY Slip Op 07715, First Dept 10-29-19

 

JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WERE ADEQUATE, ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY WERE NOT PRESERVED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the jury was properly instructed on the justification defense and any argument that the court’s instructions and the jury sheet did not comply with Velez (requiring the instruction that acquittal on the top count based upon the justification defense requires that deliberations on the lesser counts stop) was not preserved:

Defendant also asked the court, pursuant to People v Velez (131 AD3d 129 [1st Dept 2015]) and its progeny, to charge that, if the jury acquitted him of the higher count of attempted first degree assault based on justification, then it should not continue with deliberations on the lower count of second-degree assault.

The court charged the jury on the defense of justification to prevent a burglary, but declined to give a justification charge based on defense of a person. The court also told the jury that if they find defendant not guilty of either count in the indictment by reason of justification, they must also find defendant not guilty of the other count as well “because justification is a complete defense to both counts of the indictment.” Finally, the court instructed the jury on the elements of each crime, with the third element of both being “that the defendant was not justified.” During deliberations, the jury asked the court for reinstruction on the elements of the charged crimes. In a supplemental charge, the trial court reread the elements of each offense, with both including the element “that the defendant was not justified.” The jury returned a verdict finding defendant not guilty of attempted assault in the first degree, but guilty of assault in the second degree.

On appeal, defendant contends that the court’s initial and supplemental charges did not comply with Velez, and that the verdict sheet erroneously omitted the issue of justification. These claims are unpreserved. During a colloquy on the Velez issue, the court showed defense counsel a copy of its proposed charge, and defense counsel expressly agreed that it “satisfies Velez.” Further, defense counsel made no objection to the charge as given. As to the supplemental charge, defense counsel never asked the court to repeat its Velez instruction, and did not object to its absence after the charge was given. Likewise, defendant made no objections to the verdict sheet. Under the circumstances, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review these unpreserved claims. People v Davis, 2019 NY Slip Op 07754, First Dept 10-29-19

 

,

ALLOWING THE INTRODUCTION OF A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined it was (harmless) error to allow the People to introduce a witness’s grand jury testimony as a prior consistent statement to counter the implication of recent fabrication raised on cross-examination:

“A witness'[s] trial testimony ordinarily may not be bolstered with pretrial statements” … . Prior consistent statements, however, may be used to rebut a claim of recent fabrication to the extent that such a statement predated the motive to falsify … . …

… [W]e conclude that Supreme Court erred in allowing the People to utilize her grand jury testimony. That said, given that the admission of bolstering testimony constitutes nonconstitutional error … , we find that the error is harmless and there is not a significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant but for this error … . The inconsistency speaks to which direction the shooter dispersed during what was described as a chaotic scene, not to the key issue of identification. As recited above, four witnesses identified defendant as the shooter. As such, we find that the error here is of no moment. People v Johnson, 2019 NY Slip Op 07646, Third Dept 10-24-19

 

,

TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO COMPEL THE WITNESS WHO ASSERTED HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION TO TESTIFY OR TO ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE IN FRONT OF THE JURY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the trial judge properly refused to compel a witness (Chandler, an accomplice in the defendant’s offenses) who asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to testify or to assert the privilege in the presence of the jury:

Chandler — who had entered a guilty plea, but was awaiting sentencing — was produced in court. Outside the presence of the jury, Chandler’s counsel indicated that Chandler intended to exercise his privilege against self-incrimination based on the possibility that he could further incriminate himself, expose himself to perjury charges and/or provide testimony that could adversely impact his upcoming sentencing proceeding. Chandler confirmed under oath that he would invoke the privilege if called as a witness and, when questioned by defendant in the context of that inquiry, did in fact invoke the privilege. Supreme Court acknowledged that Chandler’s plea agreement was contingent upon “no information coming to the [c]ourt’s attention about prior criminal conduct that the [c]ourt did not know about.” Such unknown prior criminal conduct could potentially include crimes relating to defendant’s claim that Chandler coerced him into participating in the schemes to defraud. There was no basis for Supreme Court to conclude that Chandler’s “invocation of the privilege was clearly contumacious, nor was it patently clear that [Chandler’s testimony] could not subject him to prosecution” … . Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court’s refusal to compel Chandler to testify or to require him to assert the privilege in the presence of the jury … . Although defendant certainly had the right to call witnesses and present a defense, he had “no right to compel testimony over a claim of recognized privilege” … . People v Jones, 2019 NY Slip Op 07647, Third Dept 10-24-19

 

,

DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED ADDITIONAL MOLINEUX EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s absence from the judge’s ruling on whether Molineux evidence was admissible violated his right to be present at material stages of the trial. Although defendant was present when the Molineux arguments were made, the prosecutor made further arguments at the time of the ruling, which led to additional Molineux evidence being presented at trial:

… [T]he trial court conducted an initial Ventimiglia hearing with defendant present to address the prosecution’s Molineux application, which sought to admit evidence of defendant’s alleged prior assault on his then-girlfriend. After the parties made their arguments, the trial court postponed the issuance of its ruling. On the date the trial court intended to issue its ruling, it noted that defendant had not yet been produced, and defense counsel stated that he would prefer if the court issued its ruling with defendant present. The court stated that defendant’s presence was not required since it was merely issuing a legal ruling and began ruling on the application. The People then sought to include new factual details of the prior assault not mentioned at the earlier proceeding where defendant was present (i.e. that defendant choked his then-girlfriend to the point that she almost lost consciousness). The trial court advised the prosecutor to leave out any testimony regarding these new details since these facts were not included in the original application. However, the prosecutor stressed that these new facts were “critical” for the jury to understand why the victim feared defendant, and the trial court allowed the prosecutor to elicit testimony from the witness.

Defendant should have been afforded the opportunity to be present given that the prosecutor’s introduction of these new facts, in effect, expanded the original Molineux application and involved factual matters of which defendant may have had peculiar knowledge. Defendant was in the best position to either deny the new factual details, point out errors in the prosecutor’s account of the details, or provide defense counsel with details that would have been useful in advancing his position … . People v Calderon, 2019 NY Slip Op 07707, First Dept 10-24-19

 

, ,

PROOF OF AN UNCHARGED SEXUAL OFFENSE RELIED UPON FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS INSUFFICIENT; LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT REDUCED TO LEVEL TWO (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reduced the defendant’s sex offender level from three to two because the evidence of an uncharged sexual offense was not sufficient:

… [A]lthough the defendant’s presumptive risk level was level two, the People contended that an upward departure was warranted based upon evidence that, approximately three months before the charged crime was committed, the defendant committed an uncharged sex offense against a different victim who allegedly was 15 years old at the time. While the People presented DNA evidence establishing that the defendant had sexual contact with the second alleged victim, the only evidence of that alleged victim’s age was a statement in a police report that she was 15 years old, and, since the police report stated that the alleged victim’s sexual contact with the defendant was willing, the bare notation of the victim’s age was the only proof of the crime on which the People relied. Thus, the Supreme Court should not have granted an upward departure since the evidence of the alleged victim’s age was not supported by a “detailed victim statement[ ]” … or otherwise corroborated … . People v Torres, 2019 NY Slip Op 07629, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IMPROPERLY ADDRESSED TO CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, WHO ARE NOT POLICE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS POLICES OFFICERS, AND THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED BY BOTH POLICE OFFICERS AND CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; NEITHER THE SEARCH WARRANT NOR THE SEARCH WAS THEREBY RENDERED INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that corrections officers, who are not police officers, participated in the search of his property was properly denied:

The defendant is correct that the search warrant was improperly addressed to the Special Operations Group, since it includes members who are not police officers within the meaning of the statute (see CPL 690.25[1]; see also CPL 2.10[25]). However, “[s]earch warrants should be tested in a commonsense and realistic manner with minor omissions and inaccuracies not affecting an otherwise valid warrant” … . Indeed, the fact that a search warrant is partially but not wholly invalid does not necessarily require suppression of the evidence that was recovered pursuant to such a warrant . Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the search warrant here was … otherwise properly addressed to sworn police officers in conformity with CPL 690.25(1), the additional inclusion of the members of the Special Operation Group who were not police officers was “analogous to a clerical omission which did not invalidate the warrant” … .

Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the participation by members of the Special Operations Group in the execution of the search warrant did not invalidate the search or otherwise require suppression of the physical evidence at issue. Although the Criminal Procedure Law only authorizes “[a] police officer” to execute a search warrant … , the participation by an individual who does not meet this statutory definition “is not inherently improper”… . Indeed, courts have upheld the validity of a search where civilians participated in the execution of a search warrant … . Under such circumstances, “civilians who act at the behest of the State are treated as police agents, subject to the same controls and restrictions of the Fourth Amendment as the police themselves” … . People v Ward, 2019 NY Slip Op 07624, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

THE SECOND TRIAL VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROHIBITION; THE FIRST TRIAL COULD HAVE CONTINUED WITH ELEVEN JURORS AFTER A JUROR WAS DISQUALIFIED DURING DELIBERATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, after the second trial was finished, determined that the second trial violated the double jeopardy prohibition. In the first trial, a juror talked to an attorney about the evidence and, during deliberations, told the other jurors what the attorney said. That juror was disqualified. The People moved for a mistrial. The defendant opposed and was willing to proceed with eleven jurors. The judge declared a mistrial:

When a mistrial is declared without the consent of or over the objection of a defendant, a retrial is precluded unless ” there was manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would be defeated'” … . …

… [T]he People have not met their burden of demonstrating that the declaration of a mistrial was manifestly necessary. While it is undisputed that juror number 11 was grossly unqualified to continue serving, the Supreme Court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial without considering other alternatives. The defendant specifically indicated his desire to waive trial by a jury of 12 individuals and proceed with the remaining 11 jurors, an option that has been endorsed by the Court of Appeals … . Under the circumstances presented, as urged by defense counsel, it would have been appropriate to poll the remainder of the jurors to ascertain whether they could render an impartial verdict … . Moreover, as the improper information imparted to the jurors did not significantly prejudice the People, the court should have considered whether a specific curative instruction could have clarified what constituted “evidence” and whether such an instruction could have cured the impropriety … . Accordingly, there was an insufficient basis in the record for the declaration of a mistrial, and thus, a retrial was precluded. People v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 07622, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN THE JUDGE TOLD HIM NOT TO DISCUSS HIS TRIAL TESTIMONY WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL DURING A TWO-DAY ADJOURNMENT; ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL-SUFFICIENCY AND RIGHT-TO-COUNSEL ISSUES WERE NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions on several counts in the interest of justice because the evidence was legally insufficient, noted that a new trial was required on the remaining counts because defendant was deprived of his right to counsel. The trial judge told the defendant he could not discuss his trial testimony with his counsel during a two-day adjournment:

With regard to the third and seventeenth through twenty-third counts of the indictment, the defendant’s convictions must be reversed because he was deprived of the right to counsel when the County Court instructed him not to discuss his trial testimony with his attorney during a two-day adjournment … . Although the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review, we reach the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Peloso, 2019 NY Slip Op 07614, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

A DEFENDANT WHO PLEADS GUILTY FORFEITS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION; HERE, BECAUSE THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY TOLD DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPEAL, THE DEFENDANT MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the court was wrong when it informed defendant he retained the right to appeal the ruling on the speedy trial motion (CPL 30.30) after his guilty plea. Therefore defendant was entitled to the opportunity to withdraw his plea in this attempted murder case:

A defendant who has entered a plea of guilty “forfeit[s] his [or her] right to claim that he [or she] was deprived of a speedy trial under CPL 30.30” … . However, where a defendant’s plea is predicated upon a false assurance that, notwithstanding the plea, the defendant can nonetheless contest the denial of a CPL 30.30 motion, the defendant is entitled, if he or she wishes, to withdraw the plea of guilty … .

Here, it is clear from the record that the defendant pleaded guilty in reliance upon a promise from the Supreme Court that, upon his plea of guilty, he would retain the right to appeal the denial of his motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment. However, that promise cannot be fulfilled … . Therefore, as the People concede, the defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty … .  People v Hernandez, 2019 NY Slip Op 07605, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

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