You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO FURTHER INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT SENTENCE HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT BASED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTOR’S ASSERTION SHE DID NOT COMPLETE A MENTAL HEALTH COURT PROGRAM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to further inquiry into whether she violated the terms of her plea agreement. Defendant was not sentenced in accordance with the agreement based solely on the prosecutor’s assertion she had not successfully completed a Mental Health Court program:

The County Court failed to conduct an inquiry sufficient to assure that the defendant had, in fact, violated the terms of the plea agreement and that the information upon which it based the sentence was reliable and accurate … . Thus, we remit the matter … for a sufficient inquiry and a new determination as to whether the defendant violated the terms of the plea agreement, and for resentencing thereafter.

Moreover, as acknowledged by the People, the County Court should not have pronounced sentence without first receiving a presentence investigation report … . People v Dimon, 2019 NY Slip Op 05417, Second Dept 7-3-19

 

, ,

THE LAW REQUIRING THAT SEX OFFENDERS CANNOT RESIDE WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL GROUNDS IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EVEN AS APPLIED TO AN OFFENDER WHOSE SEX OFFENSES INVOLVED ADULTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice concurrence, determined defendant sex offender, in this habeas corpus proceeding, was not entitled to release on parole on the ground that the law prohibiting him from residing within 1000 feet of school grounds was unconstitutional. The concurrence called into question the effects of the law. Petitioner’s sex offenses involved adults, not children:

… [A]lthough the open parole release date granted to petitioner cannot be revoked absent procedural due process, we are unpersuaded that he has a further “liberty interest [or] fundamental right . . . to be free from special conditions of parole” regarding his residence under either the Federal or the State Constitution … . …

… [P]etitioner has not satisfied his “heavy burden of showing that [Executive Law § 259-c (14)] is ‘so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes’ as to be irrational” … . Petitioner may or may not be correct when he says that the mandatory condition does not achieve its legitimate goals, but the argument that there are “better or wiser ways to achieve the law’s stated objectives” must be addressed to the Legislature … . Thus, the mandatory condition comports with substantive due process, and petitioner is not entitled to immediate release. People ex rel. Johnson v Superintendent, Adirondack Corr. Facility, 2019 NY Slip Op 05359, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

, ,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BASED IN PART ON THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT OF RESPONDENT’S CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner’s motion for summary judgment in this neglect proceeding was properly granted. The motion was based in party on respondent’s endangering-the-welfare-of-a-child conviction:

… “[A] criminal conviction may be given collateral estoppel effect in a Family Court proceeding where (1) the identical issue has been resolved, and (2) the defendant in the criminal action had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of his or her criminal conduct” … . Defendant does not dispute that he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his criminal conduct before the trial court … . … In order to find a defendant guilty of endangering the welfare of a child, it must be proven that “[h]e or she knowingly act[ed] in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than [17] years old” (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]). In turn, “[t]o establish neglect, [a] petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child’s physical, mental or emotional condition was harmed or is in imminent danger of harm as a result of a failure on the part of the parent to exercise a minimum degree of care” … . …

… [T]the factual allegations underlying respondent’s conviction were adequate to support the finding of neglect. Matter of Lilliana K. (Ronald K.), 2019 NY Slip Op 05358, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

,

EVIDENCE OF PRIOR UNCHARGED SEXUAL OFFENSES WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF VICTIM’S DISCLOSURE TWO AND A HALF YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS A PROMPT OUTCRY, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined detailed evidence of prior uncharged sexual offenses was not admissible under Molineux. The defendant was charged with criminal sexual act alleging defendant asked a six or seven year old boy to perform oral sex on him. The People presented in their direct case the testimony of two female relatives of the defendant alleging sexual offenses occurring more than seven years before the victim’s disclosure in the instant case. County Court also erroneously allowed hearsay about the victim’s disclosure, two and a half years after the alleged incident, under the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule:

The female relatives specifically testified to repeated instances of oral sex, vaginal sex and digital penetration by defendant, and one of the female relatives stated that defendant forced her and the other female relative to perform sexual acts upon each other as he watched. Contrary to County Court’s conclusion, such detailed testimony was not necessary to complete the narrative as to how and why the victim’s disclosure occurred … . Additionally, the prior uncharged acts did not bear a sufficient similarity to the incident underlying the charged crimes so as to constitute, as the People argued, a common scheme or plan or demonstrate defendant’s intent or motive … . Accordingly, as the People failed to establish that the proffered evidence was probative of a material issue other than defendant’s criminal propensity, County Court erred in permitting such evidence … . Moreover, even if the proffered evidence were relevant to some nonpropensity purpose, County Court erroneously determined that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect … . People v Saxe, 2019 NY Slip Op 05345, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

,

MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS, OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN, AWARE OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY SUCH THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY COUNSEL WAS TRIGGERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, holding the appeal in abeyance, determined a hearing was required to determine whether the trial court was aware, or should have been aware, of the existence of a note from the jury such that the court’s responsibility to alert counsel was triggered:

We find this case similar to People v Meyers (___ NY3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op 03658 [2019]), in which the Court of Appeals addressed the circumstance where a purported jury note that had been marked as a court exhibit was discovered in the court file after the trial, presenting circumstances suggesting that it may have been a draft that the jury discarded or chose not to submit to the trial court. * * *

Here, as in Meyers, we are presented with a scanty and ambiguous record, precluding this Court from determining whether County Court’s core responsibilities were triggered by its knowledge of the note or by circumstances that should have alerted the court to its presence. Accordingly, we remit the matter for a hearing to assess the circumstances pertaining to the events at trial during the jury’s deliberations and the acceptance of its verdict, including the transmission, receipt, marking and communication to the court of all three notes, and for a report to this Court setting out the court’s findings. People v Johnson, 2019 NY Slip Op 05344, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED UPON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL ON ALL THE RELATED LESSER COUNTS REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the jury was not properly instructed on the justification defense. The defendant was acquitted of the top count, attempted murder, and was convicted attempted assault first, a lesser included offense. The jury was not told that an acquittal on the top count based upon the justification defense required an acquittal on all the counts to which the justification defense applied. The issue was not preserved but was considered in the interest of justice:

“[I]n a case involving a claim of self-defense, it is error for the trial court not to instruct the [jury] that, if [it finds] the defendant not guilty of a greater charge on the basis of justification, [it is] not to consider any lesser counts” … . Such failure constitutes reversible error … . …

… [T]he court’s instructions, together with the verdict sheet, failed to adequately convey to the jury that, if it found defendant not guilty of attempted murder in the second degree based on justification, it was not to consider the lesser counts to which the justification defense applied … . People v Daniels, 2019 NY Slip Op 05343, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

, ,

VIRGINIA MURDER CONVICTION WHICH REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN VIRGINIA DID NOT QUALIFY DEFENDANT AS A SEX OFFENDER IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been adjudicated a sex offender in New York based upon a murder conviction in Virginia, where he was required to register as a sex offender under Virginia law. The defendant was convicted of murdering a three year old child who had suffered trauma to his genitalia:

The defendant subsequently relocated to New York in November 2017. Following a hearing pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, the Supreme Court adjudicated the defendant a level three sex offender. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, the court determined that the defendant’s mandatory registration under Virginia law made him a “sex offender” under Correction Law § 168-a(2)(d)(ii). The defendant appeals.

The victim’s extensive injuries in this case included “significant traumatic injuries to [his] scrotum and penis,” which were described at trial by the prosecution’s expert medical witness as having been inflicted “within hours to one day from the time of [the infant’s] death” and were “caused by blunt force trauma, probably squeezing” … . Nevertheless, as the People correctly concede, the order appealed from must be reversed in light of the Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in People v Diaz (32 NY3d 538), which held that mandatory registration as a murderer under Virginia Code § 9.1-902(D) does not qualify the defendant as a “sex offender” within the meaning of Correction Law § 168-a(2)(d)(ii). People v Covington, 2019 NY Slip Op 05429, Second Dept 7-3-19

 

THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED A PEN TO PUNCTURE THE CHEEK OF THE VICTIM CONSTITUTED EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANT USED A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT IN THIS ASSAULT SECOND CASE, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE ORDINARY-NONDEADLY-FORCE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s request for a jury instruction on the ordinary-nondeadly-force justification defense in this Assault Second prosecution was properly denied. The defendant did not request a jury instruction on the deadly-force-justification defense. Defendant’s use of a pen to puncture the victim’s cheek constituted use of a dangerous instrument:

The video surveillance captures the defendant reaching into his bag or pocket with his right hand and then immediately striking the complainant with that same hand. Photographs of the complainant’s cheek reflect what appears to be a puncture of the cheek. The photograph of the outside of the complainant’s cheek shows that there was a thin, horizontal cut adjacent to the round through-and-through puncture on the complainant’s cheek, consistent with a sharp object, such as the point of a pen, scratching the complainant’s cheek before the object plunged into it.

The record further reveals that police officers who arrived at the scene observed the complainant bleeding from a puncture wound on the side of his face. At the time of defendant’s arrest, the police recovered a pen that defendant was holding in his right hand. …

Under the facts presented, the only possible justification charge that would have been available to defendant would have been a charge of justifiable use of deadly, not ordinary, physical force (see Penal Law § 35.15[2]; People v Mickens, 219 AD2d 543, 544 [1st Dept 1995] …). People v Marishaw, 2019 NY Slip Op 05320, First Dept 7-2-19

 

,

STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT DURING A CONTROLLED PHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE MOTHER OF THE ALLEGED CHILD VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT IN A CLOSED ROOM AT THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE, WHERE DEFENDANT WAS INTERROGATED AND CONFRONTED WITH HIS INCULPATORY STATEMENTS, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS INTERROGATED, HE WAS NOT IN CUSTODY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, on an appeal by the People in this child sexual contact case, determined defendant’s statement, made during a controlled phone conversation with the mother of the child, should not have been suppressed. The Fourth Department further found that statements made by the defendant during interrogation at the sheriff’s office should not have been suppressed because the defendant was not in custody at the time of the interrogation:

… [W]e conclude that the mother “did not make a threat [or a promise] that would create a substantial risk that defendant might falsely incriminate himself”… . We further conclude that the controlled call did not constitute an unconstitutionally coercive police tactic; nor were the tactics employed by the mother during the call unconstitutionally coercive (see generally CPL 60.45 [2] [b] [ii] …), and “[d]eceptive police stratagems in securing a statement need not result in involuntariness without some showing that the deception was so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process or that a promise or threat was made that could induce a false confession’ ” … . …

… [A]lthough defendant’s interview occurred at the Sheriff’s Office, that fact “does not necessarily mean that he is to be considered in custody’ ” … . Defendant voluntarily agreed to meet the investigators at the Sheriff’s Office and arranged for his own transportation to and from the interview … . When defendant arrived, the investigators informed him that he was free to leave … . In fact, defendant left the Sheriff’s Office at the conclusion of the interview despite making inculpatory statements. Further, defendant was not restrained during the interview, and the door to the interview room was unlocked … . Although the investigators confronted defendant with the statements that he made during the controlled call, the fact that the questioning may have turned accusatory in nature did not render the interview custodial given the other circumstances present in this case … . People v Morris, 2019 NY Slip Op 05264, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, , ,

RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, THE ARGUMENT SURVIVES THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL; DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL DID NOT SURVIVE THE WAIVER OF APPEAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT ASSERT THE DEPRIVATION INFECTED THE PLEA AGREEMENT OR THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE PLEA (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined restitution should not have been ordered because it was not part of the plea agreement. The court noted that defendant’s argument he was deprived of his right to counsel with respect to his decision to testify before the grand jury was not forfeited by his guilty plea, but was encompassed by his waiver of appeal. The Fourth Department declined to follow a 3rd Department decision which held a deprivation-of-counsel argument survives a waiver of appeal irrespective of whether the deprivation infected the guilty plea. Here defendant did not assert that the alleged deprivation of his right to counsel infected the plea bargaining process or tainted the voluntariness of the plea:

Defendant’s further contention that County Court erred in ordering him to pay restitution because restitution was not part of the plea agreement survives both his guilty plea and his unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal … . Moreover, contrary to the People’s contention, defendant preserved his contention for appellate review by objecting to the imposition of restitution on the same ground he now advances … . On the merits, it is undisputed that the plea bargain did not include restitution, and the court therefore erred in awarding restitution without affording defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea … . People v Richardson, 2019 NY Slip Op 05310, Second Dept 6-28-19

 

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