You are here: / Criminal Law
,

NEW JERSEY PAROLEE’S CONSENT TO SEARCH AS A CONDITION OF PAROLE DID NOT APPLY TO A SEARCH DONE BY NEW YORK CITY POLICE IN QUEENS; STATEMENTS MADE WITHOUT MIRANDA WARNINGS, INCLUDING THE CONSENT TO SEARCH, AS WELL AS THE FRUITS OF THE SEARCH, PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly suppressed statements made without Miranda warnings, including the consent to search a safe, as well as the firearms seized from the safe. Although defendant was on parole in New Jersey, the search was done in Queens by New York City police. Therefore the consent to search provided by parolees as a condition of parole was not applicable:

… [A]lthough Soto had consented to searches by New Jersey parole officers as a condition of his parole, the record reveals that the NYPD officers, not the New Jersey parole officers, searched the safe after they were notified that the New Jersey parole officers found what appeared to be heroin in the apartment. Accordingly, the People cannot rely on Soto’s consent given as a condition of parole to justify the warrantless search of the safe … . Furthermore, since the NYPD officers failed to advise Soto of his Miranda rights prior to questioning him and obtaining his consent to open the safe, his statements regarding the safe and his consent to open it cannot be characterized as voluntary … . Moreover, the People failed to proffer any argument as to why the warrantless search was proper as to Santiago. Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting those branches of Soto’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the firearms evidence and the statements made by him to the NYPD officers without the benefit of Miranda warnings, and that branch of Santiago’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the firearms evidence … . People v Santiago, 2019 NY Slip Op 07099, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

, ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect:

… [A] motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 seeking to withdraw a plea to an indictment is part of a criminal action or, at the least, “related to a . . . completed criminal action,” so as to come within the statutory definition of a “[c]riminal proceeding” (CPL 1.20[18]; … ). Moreover, in light of the nature of the relief sought in the motion, the motion is, by its nature, criminal, rather than civil … . Accordingly, proper statutory authority under the Criminal Procedure Law must exist in order for the defendant to appeal from the denial of the motion … .

Such statutory authority does not exist. CPL 450.10 only provides that a defendant may appeal as of right from a judgment, sentence, or order made pursuant to specified provisions of CPL article 440, and thus, does not provide for appellate review, as of right, from an order denying a motion pursuant to CPL 220.60, to withdraw a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect. Nor does CPL 450.15 allow for such an appeal by permission, as that statute only permits an appeal from orders made pursuant to specified provisions of CPL article 440, and “[a] sentence . . . not otherwise appealable as of right” (CPL 450.15[3]). Finally, there is no avenue for appeal through CPL 330.20, which permits a party “to proceedings conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section” to appeal, by permission, from certain orders rendered under CPL 330.20 (CPL 330.20[21]). The orders specified do not include an order denying a motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 to withdraw the plea … . People v Delano F., 2019 NY Slip Op 07089, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

,

THE PRESUMPTION OF SUGGESTIVENESS RAISED BY THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PRESENT THE PHOTO ARRAYS USED BY THE WITNESS TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT WAS OVERCOME BY THE EVIDENCE OF THE SHEER NUMBER OF PHOTOS VIEWED BY THE WITNESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the witness’s identification of the defendant from photographs properly survived the motion to dismiss. The presumption of suggestiveness was overcome by the evidence of the sheer number of photographs shown to the witness. The court also held that rape first degree is a lesser included count of predatory sexual assault which was dismissed by the conviction on the higher court:

… [A]lthough the People did not produce in court the photographic arrays displayed through the use of the photo manager system, which gives rise to a presumption of suggestiveness, the People nevertheless rebutted that presumption and sustained their initial burden through the testimony of the detective, which established that she utilized the various databases applying the description of the perpetrator supplied by the complainant … . The detective testified that the complainant was shown the computer-generated photo arrays a day after the incident occurred and then again three days later. The detective’s unrebutted testimony established that 700 to 1,000 photographs were generated by the photo manager system, which were displayed in smaller arrays of photographs, from which, during the third viewing session, the complainant identified the defendant as the person who assaulted her … . “[W]hen a photographic identification procedure involves showing a witness a preexisting file consisting of a large number of photographs, the sheer volume and scope of [the] procedure militates against the presence of suggestiveness'” … . Moreover, the complainant eventually identified the defendant in a lineup. People v Castello, 2019 NY Slip Op 07085, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S DRUG SALE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reversed defendant’s drug-sale conviction as against the weight of the evidence. The police saw a woman approach defendant and the woman had a $10 bag of crack cocaine in her mouth when the police stopped her. The defendant had $10 in his pocket but no drugs on him. No exchange between the two was observed:

Two police officers testified that they observed defendant in a high drug trafficking area. They both saw defendant approach a man and talk to him. The man gave defendant money and there was an “exchange,” but the officers did not see what was exchanged. Shortly thereafter, one of the officers witnessed a woman approach defendant. The officer saw the woman speak to defendant and then touch his hand, but the officer did not see any money or drugs exchanged. Defendant and the woman separated, and the officer approached the woman. The officer identified herself, said that she just saw what happened, and heard the woman chewing on something. She asked the woman to spit out the object, which turned out to be a small bag containing $10 worth of crack cocaine. The officer never saw the woman put the bag in her mouth or even bring her hand to her mouth. The police then arrested the woman and defendant. Defendant did not have any drugs on him, but had $10 in his sweatshirt pocket and other denominations of cash in his pants pocket.

In the exercise of our factual review power, we conclude that the People did not prove beyond any reasonable doubt that defendant sold cocaine to the woman, which was the only crime charged. The officer who witnessed the transaction acknowledged she did not observe an exchange of anything, including money, drugs or unidentified objects, between defendant and the woman. In addition, the People’s theory that the woman put the bag in her mouth after purchasing it from defendant was contradicted by the officer’s testimony that she never saw the woman put anything into her mouth, or even put her hand to her mouth. Furthermore, the People’s theory that defendant sold two $10 bags, one to the man and the other to the woman, was inconsistent with the cash found on defendant. People v Correa, 2019 NY Slip Op 07017, First Dept 10-1-19

 

, ,

RAPE THIRD IS NOT AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF RAPE FIRST; THE VERDICT SHEET INCLUDED AN IMPERMISSIBLE ANNOTATION, MATTER REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO THE ANNOTATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined: (1) rape third is not an inclusory concurrent count of rape first; and (2) the verdict sheet included an impermissible annotation. The matter was remitted to determine whether defense counsel consented to the annotation:

… [T]he verdict sheet, which states in relevant part “Fourth Count: Rape in the Third Degree (lack of consent/totality of circumstances),” contains an impermissible annotation. Specifically, the “totality of circumstances” language is impermissible because it is not “statutory language” (CPL 310.20 [2]; see Penal Law § 130.25 [3]). Rather, it is language from the pattern jury instructions (see CJI 2d[NY] Penal Law § 130.25 [3]). Supreme Court was therefore required to obtain defense counsel’s consent prior to submitting the annotated verdict sheet to the jury … . Although “consent to the submission of an annotated verdict sheet may be implied where defense counsel fail[s] to object to the verdict sheet after having an opportunity to review it’ “… , here, the record does not reflect whether defense counsel had that opportunity. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine, following a hearing if necessary, whether defense counsel consented to the annotated verdict sheet … . People v Wilson, 2019 NY Slip Op 06900, Fourth Dept 9-27-19

 

,

THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION OR AS A LIMITED SAFETY SEARCH, MOTION TO SUPPRESS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress a handgun found in his vehicle and a post-seizure statement was properly granted:

… [O]fficers responded to the complainant’s home after receiving a call that he had been threatened by defendant. The complainant told an officer that defendant threatened to shoot him and that he believed the threat was serious because defendant had been in possession of a black handgun prior to the instant incident. Defendant, who was seated in his truck, which was parked in front of the complainant’s home, acknowledged that he had previously said he would shoot the complainant if the complainant entered defendant’s property. Based on that information and defendant’s admissions that he owned a rifle, which was at his home, and that he had a Virginia pistol permit but no New York pistol permit, the officers searched defendant’s person but recovered no weapons. The officers then searched the area near the driver’s seat of defendant’s truck, from which they recovered a loaded handgun. …

The automobile exception to the warrant requirement permits a police officer to ” search a vehicle without a warrant when [the officer has] probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there’ ” … . [T]he police did not have probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle after they searched him and determined that there was no immediate threat to their safety … , inasmuch as defendant was not alleged to have brandished a gun at the scene, there was inconclusive evidence that he actually threatened the complainant at the scene, defendant did not engage in any suspicious or furtive movements, and the officers did not observe any weapons or related contraband in the vehicle or on defendant’s person … . …

… [T]he officers’ search of defendant’s vehicle was not justifiable as a limited safety search. Probable cause is not required for a limited search of a vehicle ” where, following a lawful stop, facts revealed during a proper inquiry or other information gathered during the course of the encounter lead to the conclusion that a weapon located within the vehicle presents an actual and specific danger to the officers’ safety sufficient to justify a further intrusion’ ” … . However, the Court of Appeals has “emphasized . . . that a reasonable suspicion alone will not suffice” and that “the likelihood of a weapon in the [vehicle] must be substantial and the danger to the officer’s safety actual and specific” … . People v Pastore, 2019 NY Slip Op 06930, Fourth Dept 9-27-19

 

,

THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENTIONALLY AIDED THE PRINCIPALS IN THE KIDNAPPING; THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED A WEAPON, HOWEVER, WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department affirmed defendant’s kidnapping conviction but reversed the weapons-related counts because the evidence she constructively possessed a weapon found in the house was legally insufficient:

… [T]he evidence is legally sufficient to support [defendant’s] conviction of kidnapping in the second degree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we conclude that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences to support the conclusion that defendant had “a shared intent, or community of purpose’ with the principal[s]” … . Defendant was present in a house when the police raided it and rescued two victims who were being held captive there, and the identification of one of the victims was found in a backpack that defendant was wearing when the police entered the house. It could be readily inferred from the evidence that defendant was aware that the victims were being held there and that she intentionally aided the principals by providing them and the victims with food … . …

[The weapons-related] counts were based on her possession of a rifle that was found in the house after the police entered. To establish constructive possession of the weapon, the People had to establish that defendant “exercised dominion or control over [the weapon] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” … . Here, the evidence established that, prior to the arrival of the police, defendant was sitting in the living room of the house, the rifle was on a table in the living room, and one of the other perpetrators in the kidnapping put on a mask, grabbed the rifle, went to the room where the victims were being held, then came back to the living room and put the rifle back on the table. Contrary to the People’s contention, that evidence is insufficient to establish that defendant had constructive possession of the weapon. A defendant’s mere presence in the house where the weapon is found is insufficient to establish constructive possession … , and there was no evidence establishing that defendant exercised dominion or control over the weapon … . People v Rolldan, 2019 NY Slip Op 06913, Fourth Dept 9-27-19

 

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; MATTER REMITTED FOR THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid. He therefore could challenge the denial of his suppression motion on appeal. However, Supreme Court did not make the statutorily required findings of fact and conclusions of law. The matter was remitted for findings on all the issues raised by the suppression motion, and the appeal is held in abeyance:

When the Supreme Court attempted to explain to the defendant the waiver of the right to appeal, it improperly conflated the right to appeal with rights automatically forfeited by a plea of guilty … . As such, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the nature of the right he was being asked to waive or the distinction between the right to appeal and the other trial rights which are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty … . Moreover, although the record of the proceedings reflects that the defendant executed a written waiver of his right to appeal, the court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waiver or discussed it with defense counsel … . …

“[T]he CPL article 710 suppression procedure involves an adjudication based on mixed questions of law and fact”… . “The suppression court must make findings of fact, often requiring it to assess the credibility of witnesses” … . “Regardless of whether a hearing was conducted, the court, upon determining [an article 710] motion, must set forth on the record its findings of fact, its conclusions of law and the reasons for its determination” (CPL 710.60[6] …). People v Harris, 2019 NY Slip Op 06795, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

,

DEFENDANT REQUESTED AN ATTORNEY IN NEVADA AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL BEFORE HE WAS QUESTIONED IN NEW YORK, HIS STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant had requested an attorney in Nevada and, upon being returned to New York, was questioned without waiving his right to counsel in the presence of counsel. Therefore the statements should have been suppressed:

Defendant’s motion to suppress his incriminating written and videotaped statements should have been granted. Several days before defendant made the contested statements, he was taken into custody by the Las Vegas Police Department. While in custody, defendant requested to speak with the detective from the Regional Fugitive Task Force who had located defendant in Las Vegas and was about to bring him back to New York. The detective met defendant in a conference room and asked him if he wanted to talk. Defendant responded, “I would like to tell you what happened, but I think I want to talk to an attorney.” The detective, who responded by saying “okay,” and did not ask defendant any questions about the homicide, testified that he understood that defendant “wanted an attorney.”

Upon returning to New York, defendant met with the investigating detective and made incriminating written and video statements. Defendant moved to suppress his statements, which was denied, and the statements were admitted at trial.

“When a defendant in custody unequivocally requests the assistance of counsel, any purported waiver of that right obtained in the absence of counsel is ineffective … . People v Roman, 2019 NY Slip Op 06719, First Dept 9-24-19

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS SLIGHTLY LATE; TO DENY THE REQUEST IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCERNABLE INTERFERENCE OR UNDUE DELAY WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the denial of defense counsel’s slightly late peremptory challenge to an unsworn juror was an abuse of discretion:

The court named prospective juror number one to be assigned a seat and said, “We now have ten, need two. Looking at Chavez – -,” when defense counsel interrupted, stating that he had made an error and had intended to exercise a peremptory challenge to prospective juror number one. Defense counsel acknowledged that the challenge was “a couple of seconds” late, and requested permission to excuse prospective juror number one. The court summarily denied the request.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying his belated peremptory challenge. We agree. Under CPL 270.15, “the decision to entertain a belated peremptory challenge is left to the discretion of the trial court” … . Where a belated peremptory challenge to as-yet unsworn prospective jurors “would interfere with or delay the process of jury selection,” it is a proper exercise of the court’s discretion to refuse to permit the challenge … . However, where there is “no discernable interference or undue delay caused by defense counsel’s momentary oversight that would justify [the court’s] hasty refusal to entertain [the] defendant’s challenge,” it is an improvident exercise of discretion to deny it … . Here, the delay in challenging prospective juror number one was de minimis …. There was no discernable interference or undue delay caused by defense counsel’s momentary oversight, and the voir dire of the next subgroup of jurors was still to be conducted … . People v Price, 2019 NY Slip Op 06629, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

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