You are here: / Criminal Law
, , , ,

ALLOWING AN UNSWORN WITNESS TO TESTIFY WAS ERROR; ALLOWING QUESTIONING ABOUT A WITNESS’S ASSERTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED FOR A STATEMENT NOT SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a concurrence and a dissent, determined the questioning of an unsworn witness (Mitchell) who refused to answer questions pursuant to the Fifth Amendment privilege deprived defendant of a fair trial. The issues pertaining to the witness’s refusal to take the oath and testify were nor preserved, but were considered in the interest of justice. The court noted Criminal Procedure Law 710.30 does not apply to statements made voluntarily in a noncoercive, noncustodial setting. Therefore the failure to timely notify the defense of the defendant’s admission to the murder made to a confidential informant was not an error. Based upon the trial judge’s characterization of the defendant at sentencing, the new trial will be before a different judge:

Since Mitchell refused to take the oath, and was not deemed to be ineligible to take the oath by reason of, inter alia, infancy, mental disease, or defect pursuant to CPL 60.20(2), the Supreme Court erred in allowing Mitchell to testify or be questioned by counsel. The court further erred in giving the jury a charge regarding the corroboration of an unsworn witness …, which permits a jury, under certain conditions, to convict a defendant upon unsworn testimony of a person deemed ineligible to take an oath. …

… .[T]he prejudice to the defendant arose from (1) the prosecutor’s posing of leading questions which informed the jury that Mitchell, a person familiar with both the defendant and the victim, had previously identified the defendant as the shooter, (2) the inferences that the prosecutor sought to draw from Mitchell’s refusal to testify, and (3) the court’s jury instructions that the jury may draw an inference of the defendant’s guilt from Mitchell’s refusal to testify. …

“Where, as here, a witness asserts [her] Fifth Amendment privilege in the presence of the jury, the effect of the powerful but improper inference of what the witness might have said absent the claim of privilege can neither be quantified nor tested by cross-examination, imperiling the defendant’s right to a fair trial” … . “[A] witness’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege may amount to reversible error in two instances: one, when the prosecution attempts to build its case on inferences drawn from the witness’s assertion of the privilege, and two, when the inferences unfairly prejudice defendant by adding critical weight’ to the prosecution’s case in a form not subject to cross-examination” … . People v Ward, 2019 NY Slip Op 06419, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

, ,

APPELLATE COUNSEL’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WAS DEFICIENT, NEW APPELLATE COUNSEL ASSIGNED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined appellate counsel’s brief in support of a motion to withdraw was deficient:

An appellate court’s role in reviewing an attorney’s motion to be relieved pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738) consists of two separate and distinct steps … . Step one requires the appellate court to perform “[an] evaluation of assigned counsel’s brief, which must, to be adequate, discuss relevant evidence, with specific references to the record; identify and assess the efficacy of any significant objections, applications, or motions; and identify possible issues for appeal, with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority'” … . Step two requires the appellate court to perform “an independent review of the record’ to determine whether counsel’s assessment that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal is correct'” … .

Here, the brief submitted by the defendant’s counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738) was deficient because it failed to adequately analyze potential appellate issues, including, but not necessarily limited to, whether the defendant’s plea of guilty was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily … . Moreover, upon this Court’s independent review of the record, we conclude that nonfrivolous issues exist, including, but not necessarily limited to, whether the defendant’s plea of guilty was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary … . Accordingly, under the circumstances, we must assign new counsel to represent the defendant. People v Robinson, 2019 NY Slip Op 06417, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MURDER CASE; THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE MUST BE DISMISSED AS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF MURDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant received effective assistance of counsel but the manslaughter first charge, as a lesser inclusory concurrent count of murder second, must be dismissed. Defendant argued defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the intoxication defense in this stabbing case:

Assuming, without deciding, that the evidence at trial was sufficient to warrant an intoxication charge … , defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request that charge in this case. Defense counsel prudently pursued arguments which sought to present this incident as a perfect storm of unnecessary escalation by the victim, followed by actions taken by the defendant to protect himself and his friends, all resulting in the wholly accidental death of the victim. Defense counsel could have strategically determined that requesting an intoxication charge would have undermined, or distracted from, the narrative the defense had pursued that the defendant was forced to make a decision when faced with the angry victim to protect himself and his friends. Accordingly, the defendant has not demonstrated the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel’s failure to request the intoxication charge … . People v Moreira, 2019 NY Slip Op 06414, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

,

WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant criminal possession of a weapon conviction and dismissing that count, determined the arresting officers should have conducted the warrantless search of a backpack in which the seized weapon was found. The criteria for a search incident to arrest were not met:

On April 30, 2015, at approximately 2:30 p.m., police officers went to the defendant’s home in response, in part, to information they had received from an informant that the defendant was selling drugs out of his home and kept a firearm concealed inside of a distinctive backpack. When the officers arrived, they observed the defendant smoking a marijuana cigarette on the porch of the home. Upon approaching the defendant and identifying themselves, the officers observed the defendant grab a distinctive backpack matching the description given by the informant, curse out loud, and run inside of the house. The officers pursued the defendant, who dropped the backpack inside the front doorway and proceeded up the stairs toward the second floor of the house. The defendant was apprehended and handcuffed on the stairs. After the defendant was secured, one of the officers at the scene opened the defendant’s backpack, inside of which he found a firearm and a quantity of marijuana. …

The protections embodied in article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution serve to shield citizens from warrantless intrusions on their privacy interests, including their personal effects'” … . “[E]ven a bag within the immediate control or grabbable area’ of a suspect at the time of his [or her] arrest may not be subjected to a warrantless search incident to the arrest, unless the circumstances leading to the arrest support a reasonable belief that the suspect may gain possession of a weapon or be able to destroy evidence located in the bag” … . The proof adduced at the suppression hearing failed to establish the presence of such circumstances … . People v Grimes, 2019 NY Slip Op 06411, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, PRE-MIRANDA QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ABOUT HIS EMPLOYMENT CONSTITUTED CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION; ALL OF DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS, PRE- AND POST-MIRANDA, MUST BE SUPPRESSED; JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ADMITTED FOR A NONHEARSAY PURPOSE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THEIR TRUTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, suppressing defendant’s statements and ordering a new trial, determined the initial questioning of the defendant, which was not preceded by the Miranda warnings, constituted interrogation. Therefore, those statements and the entire post-Miranda videotaped interrogation, should have been suppressed. The court further noted that statements made by an accomplice in a controlled phone call were admitted for a nonhearsay purpose. Therefore the jury should have been instructed not to rely on those statements for their truth:

… [T]he pre-Miranda questioning was not mere “small talk,” but, rather, interrogation … . In particular, the detective was aware, when he questioned the defendant about his employment, that Espinal [an accomplice] claimed to know the defendant from previously working with him at a bar. Indeed, when the questioning resumed after administration of Miranda warnings, it concerned the defendant’s work history at bars at or around the time of the incident. Notably, the People assert that they are not claiming that the pedigree exception to the Miranda rule is applicable, and, in any event, the detective admitted at the suppression hearing that, at the time of the interview, he had already recorded the defendant’s pedigree information and that such information does not include an individual’s employment … . Under these circumstances, the defendant was improperly subjected to custodial interrogation without being advised of his Miranda rights, requiring suppression of those statements … . People v Dorvil, 2019 NY Slip Op 06409, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS TANGIBLE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WAS ISSUED BASED UPON UNWARNED STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT, STATEMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED BY THE TRIAL COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering new suppression motions and a new trial, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress tangible evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant which was issued based upon unwarned statements made by the defendant, statements which had been suppressed by the trial court:

Here, defense counsel’s assertion of an inappropriate argument in support of the belated suppression motion, and counsel’s complete failure to challenge the admissibility of physical evidence seized from the defendant’s home based on the Miranda violation … , prejudiced the defendant and rendered counsel’s representation ineffective … . People v Corchado, 2019 NY Slip Op 06408, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

, ,

A JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO EXPUNGE A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER’S DNA RECORDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, reversing Supreme Court determined: (1) the Executive Law pertains to the local DNA databank maintained by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME); (2) an Article 78 mandamus action seeking the expungement of the petitioner-youthful-offender’s (YO’s) DNA records from the databank was properly brought; and (3) a judge has the discretion to expunge a YO’s DNA records. The petitioner voluntarily provided a DNA sample before he was adjudicated a youthful offender. Supreme Court had held it did not have the discretion to expunge the records:

… [W]e hold that the same discretion afforded to a court under the Executive Law to expunge DNA profiles and related records when a conviction is vacated may also be exercised where, as here, a YO disposition replaces a criminal conviction. The motion court, in finding that, as a matter of law, it had no discretion, failed to fulfill its statutory mandate to consider whether in the exercise of discretion, expungement of petitioner’s DNA records was warranted in this case. * * *

A YO disposition by its very nature is a judgment of conviction that is vacated and then replaced by a YO determination. This conclusion is supported by the mechanics of the YO statute, its salutary goals, and legislative intent. * * *

Petitioner did not, either expressly or by implication, waive the privilege of nondisclosure and confidentiality by providing his DNA before the court made its determination that he was eligible for YO status. Clearly the Executive Law permits an adult who has voluntarily given his or her DNA in connection with a criminal investigation the right to seek discretionary expungement where a conviction had been reversed or vacated. A youthful offender does not have and should not be afforded fewer pre-YO adjudication protections than an adult in the equivalent circumstances. Matter of Samy F. v Fabrizio, 2019 NY Slip Op 06374, First Dept 8-27-19

 

,

CRIME VICTIMS DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE A PRISONER’S RELEASE ON PAROLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, over a concurrence and a dissent, determined that the wife of a police officer murdered in 1971 did not, as a crime victim, have standing to bring an Article 78 proceeding challenging the release on parole of Herman Bell, who was convicted of the murder. Crime victims do not have standing to challenge parole determinations:

As noted by one court that has previously addressed the issue before us: “While a relative of a crime victim may be more emotionally affected by the crime than a member of the general public, that increased emotional effect is not sufficient to confer standing. While statutes have been enacted to permit crime victims the right to be heard at certain proceedings (see [CPL] 380.50), their status as crime victims has not been held to confer standing to them at any proceeding. Executive Law § 259[-]i sets forth the procedures to be followed by the [B]oard of [P]arole. Executive Law § 259[-]i (2) (c) (A) provides that when considering whether or not to grant discretionary parole release, the [B]oard must consider ‘any statement made to the [B]oard by the crime victim or the crime victim’s representative where the crime victim is deceased[.]’ The statute does not authorize any further participation in the process by a crime victim or the representative of a victim. It does not serve to confer standing to a victim who desires to challenge the determination. While the [c]ourt does not question whether the families of the victims of crime continue to suffer real emotional effects, there has not been a showing of any legal right that is affected by the determination which they seek to challenge” … . Matter of Piagentini v New York State Bd. of Parole, 2019 NY Slip Op 06229, Third Dept 8-22-19

 

,

IN DENYING A SUPPRESSION MOTION THE JUDGE CAN CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE, EVEN IF THAT EVIDENCE WAS NOT EXPRESSLY RELIED UPON BY THE PEOPLE; OBSERVATION OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DRUG TRANSACTION PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE; THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT APPLIED; THE INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress tangible evidence was properly denied, finding (1) the suppression court could properly consider all the evidence presented by the People, even if the evidence was not expressly relied upon by the People; (2) although the vehicle occupants were seized at the time the police approached, the officers’ prior observation of what appeared to be a drug transaction provided probable cause; (3) the search of the vehicle was justified by the automobile exception; and (4) the inventory search was lawful:

… [W]e conclude that the court was entitled to consider legal justifications that were supported by the evidence, even if they were not raised explicitly by the People (see CPL 710.60 [6] …). “By presenting evidence sufficient to support the court’s findings, the People met their burden of going forward . . . and the court may rely on any legal justification for police conduct for which there is factual support in the record” … . …

… .[B]efore defendant’s seizure, an officer observed defendant conduct what, based on his training and experience, appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction, even though he “couldn’t tell” what “items” he had seen during the exchange other than money. Additionally, that officer was in the area conducting surveillance on an unrelated narcotics investigation, raising the inference that the transaction occurred in a drug-prone area. Furthermore, once two other officers approached the vehicle based on the above observations, one officer saw packaging material of the kind used to store narcotics, and the other officer observed that the driver of the vehicle engaged in “furtive” behavior. Based on the totality of those factors, we conclude that the police had probable cause to believe that defendant engaged in a narcotics offense justifying the stop of the vehicle and his arrest … . …

“The [automobile] exception requires both probable cause to search the automobile generally and a nexus between the probable cause to search and the crime for which the arrest is being made’ ” … . Based on the foregoing, at the time of the search, the police had probable cause to believe that narcotics or packaging materials used in the sale and possession of narcotics were present in the vehicle … . Thus, inasmuch as there was a nexus between the probable cause to search the vehicle and the crime for which defendant was being arrested, we conclude that the police were not required to obtain a warrant … . People v Nichols, 2019 NY Slip Op 06361, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM SIDEBAR CONFERENCES DURING JURY SELECTION DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s absence from sidebar conferences did not require reversal:

Defendant contends that the court violated the rule in People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247, 250 [1992] …) when it conducted several sidebar conferences in his absence and that reversal is required with respect to two of those conferences. We disagree with defendant that reversal is required as a result of any violation of defendant’s Antommarchi rights. It is well settled that a criminal defendant has a statutory right to be present at all material stages of the trial (see CPL 260.20 …), including the sidebar questioning of a prospective juror when the purpose of the questioning is “intended to search out a prospective juror’s bias, hostility or predisposition to believe or discredit the testimony of potential witnesses” … . Nevertheless, “reversal is not required when, because of the matter then at issue before the court or the practical result of the determination of that matter, the defendant’s presence could not have afforded him or her any meaningful opportunity to affect the outcome” … . In determining whether the defendant’s presence could have afforded him or her such an opportunity, the test is whether the record negates the possibility that the defendant “could have provided valuable input on his [or her] counsel’s apparently discretionary choice to excuse those venire persons” … . Thus, reversal is not required where the defendant’s attorney does not exercise a choice to exclude a prospective juror, such as where a prospective juror is excused for cause or where the People have exercised a peremptory challenge to the prospective juror … .

… [W]e conclude that defendant had no opportunity to provide any input that might have affected the outcome regarding the relevant prospective jurors. People v Wilkins, 2019 NY Slip Op 06238, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

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