You are here: / Criminal Law
,

COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS TO INTERCEPT CELL PHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES SENT AND RECEIVED OUTSIDE NEW YORK STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants to intercept cell phone calls and text messages made and received outside New York State:

“[A]ny justice of the supreme court of the judicial district in which the eavesdropping warrant is to be executed” (CPL 700.05[4]) “may issue an eavesdropping warrant . . . upon ex parte application of an applicant who is authorized by law to investigate, prosecute or participate in the prosecution of the particular designated offense which is the subject of the application” (CPL 700.10[1]). Although the word “execute” is not defined in CPL article 700, the plain meaning of the word “execute” and the use of that word in relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Law reveal that an eavesdropping warrant is “executed” when a communication is intercepted by law enforcement officers, that is, when the communication is “intentionally overheard or recorded” by law enforcement officers (CPL 700.05[3][a]; see CPL 700.35[1]). Here, the eavesdropping warrants were executed in Kings County, New York, where the communications were intercepted by the New York City Police Department … . Therefore, under the applicable provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, had jurisdiction to issue the eavesdropping warrants.

Moreover, we reject the defendant’s argument that the eavesdropping warrants, which were authorized for the purpose of investigating crimes that were occurring in New York, constituted an unconstitutional extraterritorial application of New York State law … . People v Schneider, 2019 NY Slip Op 07424, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

, , ,

JUDGE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SEVER TWO COUNTS IN AN INDICTMENT AND REMOVE THE MATTER, INVOLVING A JUVENILE, TO FAMILY COURT; THE PEOPLE’S ARTICLE 78 SEEKING PROHIBITION DENIED AND DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department denied the People’s Article 78 action seeking to vacate an order by the respondent judge severing two counts which had been combined in an indictment and removing the charges to Family Court. The People objected to removing the prosecution of a 16-year-old to Family Court. In order the facilitate the removal, respondent judge severed the two counts. The People unsuccessfully argued the judged did not have the authority to sever the counts, and therefore could not send the charges to Family Court:

“[T]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where there is a clear legal right, and only when a court . . . acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction” … . “Use of the writ is, and must be, restricted so as to prevent incessant interruption of pending judicial proceedings by those seeking collateral review of adverse determinations made during the course of those proceedings” … .

There is no merit in the People’s contention that the court lacks the authority to sever charges that were joined in a single indictment. This argument would have validity in cases where charges were properly joinable in a single indictment. However, the law is clear that the determination of whether the charges were, in fact, properly joinable in the first instance, is a duty of the court that is not delegated to the prosecution or the grand jury.

The court has a duty to examine the indictment to determine whether joinder is proper pursuant to CPL 200.20(a) or (b). Notably, the People have not provided any precedent to support their position to the contrary. Courts routinely rule on the issue of whether charges in an indictment are properly joinable under CPL 200.20(2) and sever those charges that are not … .

While the People disagree with the court’s finding that the … charges were not properly joinable under CPL 200.20(2)(b), determination of this issue is not before us in this article 78 proceeding. Rather, we are only asked, and we only have the authority, to determine whether the court acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its authority. Matter of Vance v Roberts, 2019 NY Slip Op 07358, First Dept 10-10-19

 

, ,

PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE VICTIM’S EYE INJURY ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF ‘SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY;’ BASED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, applying a weight of the evidence analysis, determined the People did not present sufficient proof to demonstrate the victim’s eye injury rose to the level of “serious physical injury” and reduced the Assault First conviction to Assault Second. Defendant threw a brick from an overpass which struck the windshield of the victim’s car, sending glass into her eye:

Before the incident, the victim had not experienced blurry vision in her left eye. She testified that her overall vision worsened since the incident, and that she has a permanent scar on her cornea. At the time of trial, the victim visited the doctor every six months for evaluation of her corneal scar. She acknowledged, however, that before the incident, she wore eyeglasses. The medical records indicated that she had been diagnosed and treated for an eye condition, blepharitis. The medical records further indicated that, in a follow-up visit in February 2016, the victim reported no pain or change in vision. Notably, the People did not proffer any medical testimony to interpret and explain the medical records; explain the nature, severity, and prognosis of the victim’s eye injury; or to explain whether any preexisting eye condition or conditions were affected by the incident, or whether any such preexisting eye condition was a cause of any of her current complaints … .

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we conclude that the verdict convicting the defendant of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree was against the weight of the evidence. Given the lack of medical testimony to explain the nature of the victim’s eye injury, an acquittal on the charges of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree would have been reasonable. Giving appropriate weight to the evidence submitted on the issue of ” [s]erious physical injury,'” we conclude that the jury was not justified in finding that the People proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim’s eye injury created a substantial risk of death or constituted a “serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” (Penal Law § 10.00[10] …). People v Palant, 2019 NY Slip Op 07289, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINANT IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT FROM A PHOTO ARRAY IN A PROCEDURE CONDUCTED BY A POLICE OFFICER, THERE WAS NO PROOF OF THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST BY ANOTHER OFFICER, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence did not demonstrate that the officer who arrested defendant had probable cause to do so. Therefore defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted. The People presented evidence that Officer Gorman conducted a photo identification procedure and, after the robbery complainant identified the defendant, Officer Gorman issued an “I-card.” But there was no evidence of the arresting officer’s basis for arrest:

Under the fellow officer rule, “even if an arresting officer lacks personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, the arrest will be lawful if the officer acts upon the direction of or as a result of communication with a superior or [fellow] officer or another police department provided that the police as a whole were in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause to make the arrest'” … .The evidence presented by the People did not establish that the officer who actually arrested the defendant had probable cause to do so … . Officer Gorman testified that he issued an I-Card for the defendant, but he also testified that the defendant was arrested “on a different matter.” The People did not present any testimony from the arresting officer as to what information he possessed or how he received that information … . Therefore, contrary to the People’s contention, there was insufficient evidence from which to infer that the police arrested the defendant pursuant to the I-Card or at the direction of Officer Gorman … . Furthermore, the People presented no evidence at the hearing regarding the circumstances of the defendant’s arrest or the charges on which he was arrested, nor do they argue on appeal that there was any source of probable cause for the defendant’s arrest other than the I-Card. People v Hightower, 2019 NY Slip Op 07280, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

,

PHYSICAL INJURY IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED MURDER; REQUEST FOR MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION BASED UPON THE COMPLAINANT’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY PROPERLY DENIED; PERSISTENT FELONY SENTENCING PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed defendant’s attempted murder conviction, noting that proof of attempted murder does not require proof of serious injury, or any injury at all. The court further noted that the complainant was not under the People’s control and therefore the request for the missing witness jury instruction was properly denied. Defendant, however, was not properly sentenced:

… [W]e note that while none of the complainant’s injuries in this case were life-threatening, “the crime of attempted murder does not require actual physical injury to a victim at all” … . Here, the forensic evidence showing that two separate knives were used in the attack, coupled with the fact that the defendant, still holding a knife, chased the complainant outside the apartment complex and broke off his attack only after a bystander intervened, provides factually sufficient evidence of the defendant’s intent to kill.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the County Court properly declined to give a missing witness charge with regard to the complainant, as the record reflects that the complainant was not under the People’s control … . …

The sentencing minutes do not establish that the County Court asked the defendant whether he wished to controvert any allegations made in the statement filed pursuant to CPL 400.16(2) … . Accordingly, we vacate the sentences and remit the matter to the County Court, Suffolk County, for resentencing in accordance with CPL 400.16 … . People v Gunn, 2019 NY Slip Op 07279, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

, ,

UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE DEFENDANT’S AGENCY DEFENSE; THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT IN THAT GUILTY AND NOT GUILTY FINDINGS CAN NOT BE RECONCILED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department vacated defendant’s convictions in this drug/possession/sale case, finding the People did not disprove the agency defense with respect to one of the two transactions, and the verdict was repugnant in the sense guilty and not guilty findings could not be reconciled.  With respect to the agency defense, the Second Department applied a “weight of the evidence” analysis. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here:

The following factors are considered in evaluating the strength of an agency defense: “(1) did the defendant act as a mere extension of the buyer throughout the relationship, with no independent desire to promote the transaction; (2) was the purchase suggested by the buyer; (3) did the defendant have any previous acquaintance with the seller; (4) did the defendant exhibit any salesman like behavior; (5) did the defendant use his [or her] own funds; (6) did the defendant procure from many sources for a single buyer; (7) did the buyer pay the seller directly; (8) did the defendant stand to profit; and (9) was any reward promised in advance” … . …

A verdict is repugnant only if, when viewed in light of the elements of each crime as charged to the jury, “it is legally impossible—under all conceivable circumstances—for the jury to have convicted the defendant on one count but not the other” … . The purpose of the rule is to ensure that an individual is not convicted of a crime of which a jury has necessarily decided that one of the essential elements was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Cruz, 2019 NY Slip Op 07273, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

, ,

THE STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED IN AN ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE CASE WAS NOT MET IN THIS MURDER PROSECUTION; CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. There was no forensic evidence linking defendant to the murder, which occurred 11 years before the trial, and the circumstantial evidence merely raised the possibility defendant committed the murder. The decision recounts the evidence in a level of detail which cannot be fairly summarized here:

Where the prosecution relies entirely on circumstantial evidence, before the fact-finder can draw an inference of guilt, that inference must be the only one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the proven facts, and the evidence must exclude beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence … . The inferences to be drawn from the People’s evidence in this case as to coincidence of time, place, and behavior are sufficient only to create suspicion. The evidence presented at trial is not inconsistent with the defendant’s innocence, and any determination of guilt requires too much speculation to fill the gaps in the People’s evidence to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. * * *

[T]he evidence presented at trial supports the possibility that the defendant was the person who killed Perez. “[H]owever, speculation and conjecture are no substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt” … . It is not enough for the jury to determine “that the defendant is probably guilty” … . The People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the person who committed the crime. On this record, we find that the jury was not justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Clavell, 2019 NY Slip Op 07271, Second Dept 10-10-19

 

,

THE PROHIBITION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY DID NOT PRECLUDE THE PROSECUTION BASED UPON THE THEFT OF GOLDMAN SACHS SOURCE CODE UNDER A STATE STATUTE AFTER DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION UNDER A FEDERAL STATUTE WAS REVERSED; THE STATE STATUTE INCLUDED AN ELEMENT NOT INCLUDED IN THE FEDERAL STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s prosecution for unlawful use of secret scientific material did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Defendant, while working for Goldman Sachs, had uploaded source code to a server in Germany. He was first charged under a federal statute, the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA). The Second Circuit reversed the NSPA conviction because the source code was deemed “intangible” at the time of the theft (when it was transmitted) and therefore did not meet the definition of “goods” in the federal statute. However, the state statute under which defendant was subsequently prosecuted, unlawful use of secret scientific material, included tangible electronically reproduced material, and the source code reproduced on the German server met that criteria:

Defendant’s argument rests on the claim that the “goods” element of the NSPA, which undisputedly requires that the property transported be “tangible,” is equivalent to the “tangible reproduction” element of New York’s unlawful use statute. That statute provides that “[a] person is guilty of unlawful use of secret scientific material when, with intent to appropriate . . . the use of secret scientific material, and having no right to do so and no reasonable ground to believe that he [or she] has such right, [the person] makes a tangible reproduction or representation of such secret scientific material by means of writing, photographing, drawing, mechanically or electronically reproducing or recording such secret scientific material” (Penal Law § 165.07). * * *

… [T]he Second Circuit did not hold that the source codes were intangible as they existed on the German server. Rather, it held that “at the time of the theft” … — which was the same as the time that the codes were transmitted — the codes were purely intangible. Because the elements are not equivalent, there is no inconsistency between the Second Circuit’s determination that the codes were intangible when transported and this Court’s determination that defendant made a tangible reproduction when he uploaded them to the German server, where they resided within a physical medium. People v Aleynikov, 2019 NY Slip Op 07211, First Dept 10-18-19

 

,

TRIAL EVIDENCE RENDERED THE SINGLE-COUNT INDICTMENT DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial evidence rendered the single-count indictment duplicitous. Defendant was charged with criminal mischief:

We agree with defendant, however, that the single-count indictment was rendered duplicitous by the trial evidence. CPL 200.30 (1) provides that “[e]ach count of an indictment may charge one offense only.” Thus, “acts which separately and individually make out distinct crimes must be charged in separate and distinct counts” … . Here, the indictment charged defendant with damaging “the road surface at the intersection of Woolhouse Road and County Road #32” and thus was not facially defective. At trial, however, the evidence established that defendant committed two distinct offenses by damaging two different portions of the road at that intersection at two different times. Consequently, “[r]eversal is required because the jury may have convicted defendant of an unindicted [act of criminal mischief], resulting in the usurpation by the prosecutor of the exclusive power of the [g]rand [j]ury to determine the charges . . . , as well as the danger that . . . different jurors convicted defendant based on different acts … . People v Kniffin, 2019 NY Slip Op 07176, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

,

ATTEMPTED MENACING OF A POLICE OFFICER IS NOT A COGNIZABLE CRIME; CHARGING ATTEMPTED MENACING OF A POLICE OFFICER IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that attempted menacing of a police officer is not a cognizable crime because “attempt” is included in the offense. This was a mode of proceedings error that did not have to be preserved:

We agree with defendant … that his conviction of attempted menacing a police officer or peace officer must be reversed because that offense is not a legally cognizable crime. As relevant here, Penal Law § 120.18 provides that “[a] person is guilty of menacing a police officer or peace officer when he or she intentionally places or attempts to place a police officer . . . in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, . . . pistol, . . . or other firearm, whether operable or not, where such officer was in the course of performing his or her official duties and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that such victim was a police officer.” Thus, according to the definition of menacing a police officer or peace officer set forth in the Penal Law, the attempt to commit the crime is already an element of the offense, and “there cannot be an attempt to commit a crime which is itself a mere attempt to do an act or accomplish a result” … . Although defendant failed to raise this issue at trial, preservation is not required inasmuch as this issue constitutes a mode of proceedings error … . People v Dibble, 2019 NY Slip Op 07165, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

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