You are here: / Criminal Law

ATV’S ARE NOT MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MEANING OF PENAL LAW 125.13 (1) (FIRST DEGREE VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER); CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNTS OF PENAL LAW 125.13 (3) DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department dismissed certain counts of the indictment which stemmed from an accident involving an ATV (all-terrain vehicle). A passenger in the ATV, driven by defendant, was thrown from the ATV and killed. Defendant was alleged to have been driving while intoxicated and was convicted of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, aggravated driving while intoxicated and driving while intoxicated. The Third Department determined that one of the first degree vehicular manslaughter counts must be dismissed because ATV’s are not motor vehicles within the meaning of that statute (Penal Law 125.13 (1)).  The court also found that three concurrent inclusory counts must be dismissed:

ATVs are specifically excluded by the plain language of the relevant definition of motor vehicle. As relevant herein, the Penal Law defines “vehicle” to include a “motor vehicle,” which is further defined in the Vehicle and Traffic Law as “[e]very vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power, except. . . [ATVs] as defined in [Vehicle and Traffic Law] article [48-B]” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 …; see Penal Law § 10.00 [14]). This specific exclusion of ATVs from the definition of motor vehicle is further evident from two statutes that contain provisions that would be unnecessary if ATVs were included in the definition of motor vehicle. First, the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree contains separate provisions for incidents that arise from the operation of motor vehicles (see Penal Law § 125.12 [1]) and ATVs (see Penal Law § 125.12 [3]) and, second, the Vehicle and Traffic Law contains a provision specifically providing that ATVs are motor vehicles for the purpose of Vehicle and Traffic Law article 31, which prohibits the intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 2404 [5]). Thus, we are constrained to conclude that ATVs are not motor vehicles for purposes of the Penal Law. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence does not support defendant’s conviction for vehicular manslaughter in the first degree under Penal Law § 125.13 (1) (count 1). * * *

Defendant contends that his convictions under counts 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree under count 2 (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b]). “Concurrent counts are ‘inclusory’ when the offense charged in one is greater than any of those charged in the others and when the latter are all lesser offenses included within the greater” (CPL 300.30 [4]). The People concede that defendant’s conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree under count 2 requires that counts 3, 4, 6 and 7 be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts. However, they accurately note that count 5 — charging aggravated driving while intoxicated — is not an inclusory concurrent count of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree as charged pursuant to Penal Law § 125.13 (3) in count 2 because it is possible to commit the latter without also committing the former … . People v Wager, 2019 NY Slip Op 04786, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

, , ,

COUNTY COURT DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS AN INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THE PEOPLE HAD LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT AT THE TIME HE PLED GUILTY TO A PRIOR INDICTMENT (CPL 40.40); PETITIONER’S REMEDY IS DIRECT APPEAL, NOT THE INSTANT ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner must seek review of the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment pursuant to CPL 40.40 by direct appeal, not by the instant Article 78 action for prohibition or mandamus re: the district attorney and the judge. Petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the People had legally sufficient evidence to support the indictment at the time he pled guilty to a prior indictment. County Court denied that motion without a hearing, even though County Court noted it could not determine whether the People had legally sufficient evidence at the time petitioner pled guilty:

The District Attorney contends that petitioner may not obtain collateral review of County Court’s denial of his motion through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. We agree. “Neither [of the extraordinary remedies of] prohibition nor mandamus lies as a means to obtain collateral review of an alleged error of law particularly where, as here, there is an adequate remedy at law by way of a direct appeal” … . Any error in County Court’s decision denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss indictment No. 3 without a hearing is, at most, a mere error of law that does not justify the invocation of the extraordinary remedies sought … . Matter of Davis v Nichols, 2019 NY Slip Op 04794, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

,

COURT MUST CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, A VALID WAIVER OF APPEAL DOES NOT BAR RAISING THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the sentence and sending the matter back because the court did not consider whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status, noted that a valid waiver of appeal would not bar raising this issue on appeal (the waiver here was deemed invalid):

CPL 720.20(1) requires that the sentencing court “must” determine whether an eligible defendant is to be treated as a youthful offender, even where the defendant fails to request such treatment, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea agreement . Contrary to the People’s contention, the … defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid because the Supreme Court failed to confirm that the defendant understood the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it … . In any event, a valid waiver would not bar the defendant’s contention that the court failed to consider youthful offender treatment … . People v Ramirez. 2019 NY Slip Op 04727, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL SUCCESSFULLY PURSUED A MISIDENTIFICATION DEFENSE THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL BUT CONCEDED THE ISSUE IN SUMMATION, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; A WITNESS MAY IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AT TRIAL DESPITE A PROCEDURALLY-DEFECTIVE PRE-TRIAL IDENTIFICATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. During the trial the victim of the robbery twice misidentified the defendant before identifying the defendant, first indicating he did not see the defendant in the courtroom and then indicating a spectator was the assailant. Defense counsel pursued the misidentification defense throughout the trial, successfully challenging the admission of a surveillance video. But in summation defense counsel essentially conceded that defendant was one of the assailants. The Second Department noted that a witness who participated in a procedurally-defective pretrial identification procedure may still identify the defendant at trial if the People demonstrate the in-court identification is based upon the witness’s independent observation of the defendant, here the observations made during the robbery itself:

“A witness may identify the perpetrator of a crime as part of his or her in-court testimony, notwithstanding the existence of a procedurally-defective pretrial identification procedure, provided that the People establish by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification is based upon the witness’s independent observation of the defendant” … . Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, at an independent source hearing, the prosecution proved by clear and convincing evidence that the complainant’s in-court identification of the defendant would be based on his independent observations during the robbery … . * * *

… [D]efense counsel’s confused and contradictory actions, effectively conceding the dispositive issue, deprived the defendant of his right to the effective assistance of counsel … . Given defense counsel’s opening statement and his conduct throughout the course of the trial in advancing his misidentification defense, his decision to abandon his chosen defense midstream in favor of a nebulous and contradictory argument that no forcible taking of property had occurred, “was so unreasonable, inconsistent, and devoid of any possibility of success that it does not even rise to the level of trial strategy” … . Under the circumstances, the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel and is entitled to a new trial. People v Goondall, 2019 NY Slip Op 04721, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

,

THE JUDGE PROPERLY HANDLED A JUROR’S HESITATION WHEN THE JURY WAS POLLED, THE JUROR WAS QUESTIONED BY THE JUDGE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, THE JUDGE DETERMINED THE JUROR WAS NOT UNDER IMPROPER PRESSURE AND SENT THE JURY BACK FOR FURTHER DELIBERATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the trial judge properly handled a juror’s (juror number two’s) hesitation when the jury was polled. Outside the presence of the jury, the judge asked the juror about his reasons for hesitation, determined it was not caused by improper pressure, and sent the jury back for more deliberations:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon juror number two’s hesitation in affirming the verdict. “[T]he jury must, if either party makes such an application, be polled and each juror separately asked whether the verdict announced by the foreman is in all respects his verdict. If . . . any juror answers in the negative, the court must refuse to accept the verdict and must direct the jury to resume its deliberation” (CPL 310.80). Here, the court appropriately conducted an inquiry, outside the other jurors’ presence, into why juror number two hesitated in affirming the verdict, and further obtained clarification as to the reasons he gave … . Juror number two’s responses clarified that the pressure he perceived did not “[arise] out of matters extraneous to the jury’s deliberations or not properly within their scope” … . Further, his responses established that the “verdict [was] not the product of actual or threatened physical harm” … . Accordingly, we agree with the court’s determination to instruct the jury to continue deliberating … . People v Folkes, 2019 NY Slip Op 04719, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

,

THE NEGATIVE CHARACTER TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY STRUCK, NOT BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE IS GENERALLY INADMISSIBLE, BUT BECAUSE THE WITNESS WAS ONLY FAMILIAR WITH THE DEFENDANT’S CHARACTER IN THE WORKPLACE, WHICH WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH A CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the negative character evidence was properly stricken. Negative character evidence (i.e., that the witness never heard that defendant acted in a sexually inappropriate or sexually abusive manner in the workplace) is admissible if it relates to the appropriate community. Here the community the witness testified about was the workplace, which was not the relevant community because the alleged sexual misconduct with a child occurred in secret and outside the workplace:

Contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, negative evidence of reputation—i.e., that the witness never heard anyone say anything negative about the defendant—can constitute relevant character evidence … . However, relevant character evidence must be of reputation generally in the community where the crime occurred … . Although that community is more broadly defined in modern times … , the defendant’s reputation in the workplace for lack of sexual impropriety was in no way relevant to whether he sexually abused a child in secret and outside of the workplace. Accordingly, the character evidence was properly stricken, since that evidence was irrelevant. People v Durrant, 2019 NY Slip Op 04716, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

,

NOTE: THIS CASE WAS REVERSED BY THE US SUPREME COURT ON JANUARY 20, 2022, BASED UPON A VIOLATION OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE; IN AN EXHAUSTIVE DECISION WHICH DISCUSSED ONLY THE CONVOLUTED FACTS OF THIS MURDER CASE, THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION, OVER A DISSENT WHICH CALLED INTO QUESTION THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an extensive, detailed, exhaustive rendition of the convoluted facts in this murder case, over a dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient. The victim was a two-year-old child in a van who was struck by a stray bullet. Major issues were whether the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated and whether the jury was made aware that one of the eyewitnesses had identified a person other than the defendant, Morris, as the shooter. Morris was initially charged with the murder and went to trial which ended in a mistrial. He then pled guilty, against his attorney’s advice, to an apparently unrelated possession of a weapon charge. The shooting took place in 2006. Defendant was arrested and indicted in 2013 and went to trial in 2015. The majority appeared to rely heavily on evidence of consciousness of guilt (the defendant gave up a business in New York and fled to North Carolina). People v Hemphill, 2019 NY Slip Op 04646, First Dept 6-11-19

In an important opinion from the United States Supreme Court released January 20, 2022, and revised January 21, 2022, Hemphill’s conviction was reversed on the ground his right to confront Morris, who was not available to testify, had been violated by allowing the Morris’s plea allocution to be introduced in evidence. The stray bullet came from a 9mm weapon. The defense argued Morris was the shooter. After Morris’s murder trial ended in a mistrial, Morris pled guilty to possession of a .357 revolver. The plea allocution was allowed in evidence to “correct” the defense’s “misleading” argument that Morris was the shooter. Hemphill’s conviction was affirmed by the New York State Court of Appeals, over a dissent by Judge Fahey. People v Hemphill, 2020 NY Slip Op 03567, 35 NY3d 1035 CtApp 6-20-20

The violation of the Confrontation Clause warranted reversal by the US Supreme Court. 1/20/22 20-637 Hemphill v. New York

 

,

ANY BRADY VIOLATIONS WERE NOT “MATERIAL” IN THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE JURY’S VERDICT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based upon the People’s failure to turn over Brady material relevant to the impeachment of a key prosecution witness (JA), and the prosecutor’s failure to correct that witness’s testimony, should not have been granted. The opinion includes a detailed recitation of the evidence which can not be fairly summarized here. In a nutshell, the Court of Appeals held that any Brady violation that might have occurred, in light of the extensive impeachment evidence forcefully used by defense counsel, the violation was not “material” in that it could not have affected the verdict:

… [D]efendant brought [a] CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction … . … [D]efendant asserted that the People had violated their Brady obligation by failing to turn over evidence that there was an agreement to confer a benefit on JA in exchange for his testimony at defendant’s murder trial. In addition, defendant asserted that the trial prosecutor personally intervened in JA’s burglary case by procuring his release without bail during the June 13th drug court appearance, failed to correct JA’s trial testimony to specify that she was the “DA” who participated on June 13th, and failed to correct his characterization of his performance as ‘good’ in the drug treatment program … . * * *

“To make out a successful Brady claim, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material” … . In New York, where a defendant made a specific discovery request for a document, and the information was not disclosed, we measure the third prong of the materiality of the suppressed Brady material by considering whether there is a reasonable possibility that disclosure of the evidence would have changed the result of the proceedings … . In the absence of a specific request by defendant, materiality is established if there is a “reasonable probability” that the result would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed — meaning ” a probability sufficient to undermine the court’s confidence in the outcome of the trial’ ” … . * * *

In determining that a Brady violation occurred, the Appellate Division failed to do the required materiality analysis as to the suppressed information. * * *

… [T]o say that there was ample impeachment evidence at trial against the witness on multiple levels is an understatement. … [T]here is no reasonable possibility that the knowledge that the trial prosecutor was the specific ADA who stood up for the People at the June 13th appearance and that JA was still in a drug program despite additional program violations — leaving treatment and bringing cigarettes into a facility — would have changed the jury’s verdict. People v Giuca, 2019 NY Slip Op 04642, CtApp 6-11-19

 

,

APPEAL OF THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL ISSUE FORECLOSED BY THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL; THE STATEMENT-SUPPRESSION ISSUE FORECLOSED BY THE WAIVER OF APPEAL; THE CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL ISSUE WAS ABANDONED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted: (1) the statutory speedy trial issue is foreclosed by defendant’s guilty plea; (2) the statutory speedy trial issue is foreclosed by the waiver of appeal; (3) the statement-suppression issue is foreclosed by the waiver of appeal; and (4) because defendant pled guilty before Supreme Court decided the constitutional speedy trial issue that issue was abandoned. People v Hardy, 2019 NY Slip Op 04555, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

,

BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS REQUIRE THE SAME BLOCKBURGER TEST FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the test for double jeopardy under the state constitution is the same as under the federal constitution:

“Under the Federal Constitution, double jeopardy arises only upon separate prosecutions arising out of the same offence’ ” … . The United States Supreme Court employs a “same-elements” test, also known as the Blockburger test (Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299 [1932]), that “inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the same offence’ and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution” … . Here, the elements of DWI (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]) and leaving the scene of a property damage incident without reporting (see § 600 [1] [a]) are not the same; among other things, a person does not need to be intoxicated to be found guilty of leaving the scene of a property damage incident without reporting, and does not need to cause property damage to be found guilty of DWI. …

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clauses in the State and Federal Constitutions are nearly identically worded, and we have never suggested that state constitutional double jeopardy protection differs from its federal counterpart” … , the Court of Appeals set forth the Blockburger test, not the same conduct test, when analyzing a defendant’s claim that the double jeopardy clauses of both the Federal and State Constitutions barred a subsequent prosecution. We therefore conclude that the constitutional double jeopardy analysis is the same under federal and state law, and that there is no constitutional double jeopardy violation here … . Matter of McNerlin v Argento, 2019 NY Slip Op 04554, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

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