You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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

 

,

THE APPEAL OF AN UNPRESERVED ISSUE DID NOT PRESENT A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THREE JUDGES DISSENTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, and another dissent, determined that the modification by the Appellate Division could not be appealed:

“[A]n Appellate Division reversal [or modification] based on an unpreserved error is considered an exercise of the Appellate Division’s interest of justice power” … . Moreover, the Appellate Division’s characterization of its own holding (i.e., “on the law” or “on the facts”) is not binding; in determining jurisdiction, we look behind that characterization to discern the basis of the ruling … . …

Here, it is undisputed that, in vacating the first-degree robbery count (without disturbing the second-degree robbery convictions …), the Appellate Division relied upon an unpreserved argument concerning the proper interpretation of and minimum proof required to establish the weapon display element of the first-degree offense … . As we have repeatedly recognized, for jurisdictional purposes an unpreserved issue of this nature does not present a question of law. Thus, the Appellate Division determination — the basis of the order of modification — was not “on the law alone” but was necessarily made as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Allende, 2019 NY Slip Op 07523, Ct App 10-22-19

 

,

PROOF PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SUPPORT ATTEMPTED THIRD OR FOURTH DEGREE LARCENY, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, determined the evidence presented to the grand jury was not sufficient to support attempted third or fourth degree larceny. Apparently defendant used a sticky object to “fish” mail out of a mailbox. Although there were money orders in the mailbox, the money orders were not stuck to the object:

Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence presented to the grand jury was insufficient to demonstrate that defendant came dangerously close to taking property valued in excess of $3,000 or $1,000. There was no evidence that the items attached to defendant’s mailbox fishing apparatus had any monetary value, no evidence of the volume of the mail contained in the mailbox or whether it was physically possible for defendant to procure the two money orders deposited in the mailbox by the government investigators amidst the other mail, no evidence as to whether the fishing device was immediately reusable, and no evidence that defendant intended to make successive attempts at fishing out the contents of the mailbox in question. Furthermore, the fact that defendant stated he would be paid $100 for each mailbox fished does not establish that he came dangerously close to stealing property valued at more than $3,000 or $1,000. People v Deleon, 2019 NY Slip Op 07522, CtApp 10-22-19

 

JUROR MISCONDUCT WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS MURDER CASE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, affirming the Appellate Division, determined juror misconduct deprived defendant [Dr. Neulander] of a fair trial:

The Appellate Division concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by denying [defendant’s] CPL 330.30 motion to set aside the verdict against him based on that juror misconduct. … [H]e is entitled to a new trial. “Nothing is more basic to the criminal process than the right of an accused to a trial by an impartial jury” … .

… [A] jury convicted Dr. Neulander of murdering his wife and tampering with physical evidence. Throughout the trial, one of the jurors, Juror 12, sent and received hundreds of text messages about the case. Certain text messages sent and received by Juror 12 were troublesome and inconsistent with the trial court’s repeated instructions not to discuss the case with any person and to report any attempts by anyone to discuss the case with a juror. Juror 12 also accessed local media websites that were covering the trial extensively. In order to hide her misconduct, Juror 12 lied under oath to the court, deceived the People and the court by providing a false affidavit and tendering doctored text message exchanges in support of that affidavit, selectively deleted other text messages she deemed “problematic,” and deleted her now-irretrievable internet browsing history. The cumulative effect of Juror 12’s extreme deception and dishonesty compels us to conclude that her “improper conduct . . . may have affected a substantial right of defendant” (CPL 330.30[2]). People v Neulander, 2019 NY Slip Op 07521, CtApp 10-22-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S CONNECTICUT CONVICTION WAS NOT EQUIVALENT TO A NEW YORK REGISTRABLE OFFENSE; THE CIVIL APPEALS STANDARDS APPLY; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE PRESENTS A PURE QUESTION OF LAW, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED BELOW AND THE RECORD WAS SUFFICIENT FOR REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant need not register as a sex offender in New York based upon a Connecticut misdemeanor conviction which was not equivalent to New York’s first-degree sexual abuse statute. The court noted that the civil appeals standards apply and preservation of the error was not required because the appeal presents a pure question of law, the issue could not have been avoided if raised below, and the record is sufficient for review:

In 2003, defendant was convicted in Connecticut of two counts of fourth-degree sexual assault. To the extent relevant here, a person is guilty of that misdemeanor when he “subjects another person to sexual contact who is . . . physically helpless, or. . . subjects another person to sexual contact without such other person’s consent” (Conn Gen Stat § 53a-73a[a][1][D],[2]). The physical helplessness element would make the crime the equivalent of first-degree sexual abuse (Penal Law § 130.65[2]), a registrable offense in New York. In the absence of that element, the crime is the equivalent of third-degree sexual abuse (Penal Law § 130.55), which is not registrable.

Equivalency, based on a comparison of essential elements (see Corr Law § 168-a[1],[2][d]), may be established when “the conduct underlying the foreign conviction . . . is, in fact, within the scope of the New York offense” … . Here, the hearing court relied on undisputed documentary evidence that each victim “felt paralyzed” while being sexually abused by defendant; one victim “just froze” and the other “was afraid to confront” him. There is no indication, however, that either victim was physiologically incapable of speech, drugged into a stupor, or otherwise unable to communicate her unwillingness to submit to the sexual contact … . …

The issue is properly reviewable on this appeal, notwithstanding defendant’s failure to raise it before the hearing court. While we agree with the People that preservation considerations applicable to civil appeals apply here, those considerations do not bar review. This appeal presents a pure question of law. This issue could not have been avoided if raised before the hearing court, and it is reviewable on the existing record … .  Moreover, the hearing court expressly ruled on the issue in its detailed decision. People v Burden, 2019 NY Slip Op 07497, First Dept 10-17-19

 

POSSESSION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE CHARGE DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE DECRIMINALIZING SUCH POSSESSION IS NOT TO BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the indictment charging possession of a gravity knife based upon the statute decriminalizing such possession, even though the statute is not to be applied retroactively:

With respect to the weapon conviction, involving a gravity knife, the People, in the exercise of their broad prosecutorial discretion, have agreed that the indictment should be dismissed under the particular circumstances of the case and in light of recent legislation amending Penal Law § 265.01 to effectively decriminalize the simple possession of gravity knives, notwithstanding that this law does not apply retroactively. We agree … . People v Caviness, 2019 NY Slip Op 07494, First Dept 10-17-19

 

,

CONDITION OF PAROLE THAT PETITIONER NEVER ENTER QUEENS COUNTY WITH NO PROVISION FOR OBTAINING PERMISSION TO TRAVEL THERE VIOLATED PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the condition of petitioner’s post release supervision prohibiting him from entering Queens County (where the assault victim resides), without any option to travel there with permission, violated petitioner’s right to travel and right to associate and was arbitrary and capricious:

Release conditions that implicate certain fundamental rights, such as the right to travel and the right to associate, have been held permissible as long as “reasonably related” to a petitioner’s criminal history and future chances of recidivism … .

The special condition, as noted, provides, “I will not leave New York City . . . [including Queens] without written permission from my parole officer (including work purposes). I understand that I am not to travel under any circumstances to the borough of Queens.” Barring petitioner from the entire county of Queens under all circumstances, without any clear right to seek, or ability to obtain, a waiver from respondents, is a categorical ban impinging upon his rights to travel and association, and, for this reason alone, the travel restriction must be vacated as arbitrary and capricious, as it is not “reasonably related” to petitioner’s criminal history and future chances of recidivism … .

Accordingly, we remand this matter for respondents to issue a new travel restriction. The restriction must be clear and “reasonably related” to petitioner’s criminal history and future chance of recidivism … . Unlike the vacated restriction, the new restriction should specify that any travel restrictions are subject to case-by-case exceptions for legitimate reasons, which petitioner may request from his parole officer. Matter of Cobb v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2019 NY Slip Op 07480, First Dept 10-17-19

 

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