You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

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

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DEFENSE COUNSEL RELIED ON A CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENT WHEN DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defense counsel was ineffective because defendant was entitled to dismissal of the indictment pursuant to the speedy trial statute. Defense counsel was aware of the correct dates, but only argued defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial and did not correct County Court’s erroneous time calculation:

Although defense counsel set forth the pertinent dates of the commencement of the action and defendant’s arraignment, at which time the People announced their readiness for trial (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]), he failed to argue that the relevant period exceeded six months and was a clear violation of defendant’s statutory speedy trial rights. Instead, defense counsel focused on the constitutional speedy trial claim. At oral argument of the motion, the court addressed the statutory speedy trial claim, set forth the pertinent dates, and then stated that, according to its calculation, “without specifically crunching the numbers, but by estimates, that is a period of five months and seven days.” After addressing the circumstances of the superceding indictment and the constitutional speedy trial claim, the court asked defense counsel if there were “any fact[s] that would be pertinent that [it] did not recite in discussing the matter.” Instead of pointing out the court’s erroneous calculation of the statutory speedy trial period, defense counsel stated, “I think my motion was essentially based on the 30.20 Constitutional speedy trial . . .” … . …

Here, although, as noted, defense counsel made a speedy trial claim, we conclude that there was no strategic or legitimate explanation for defense counsel’s failure to alert the court that it had inaccurately calculated that only five months and seven days had passed between the commencement of the action and the People’s statement of readiness and that, instead, more than six months had elapsed … . People v Bloodworth, 2019 NY Slip Op 05284, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

,

IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION CASE, THE INVESTIGATOR’S ASKING DEFENDANT WHERE HE RESIDED WAS DESIGNED TO ELICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE WAS NOT PEDIGREE INFORMATION AND A CPL 710.30 NOTICE WAS REQUIRED, ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENT WAS HARMLESS ERROR HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s answer to the investigator’s asking where defendant resided, for which no CPL 710.30 notice was provided, was not pedigree information and should not have been admitted in evidence. The drug-possession charge was founded on constructive possession. Therefore asking defendant where he resided was designed to elicit an incriminating response. The error was deemed harmless however:

Defendant also contends that the court erred in admitting in evidence an oral statement of defendant regarding his address for which no CPL 710.30 notice had been given. The statement at issue was defendant’s response to a question about where he resided, and it was made to one of the principal investigators, who had executed a search warrant at the home of defendant’s parents. As the People correctly concede, defendant’s statement regarding his address was not pedigree information for which no CPL 710.30 notice was required … because, under the circumstances of this case, the investigator’s question was likely to elicit an incriminating admission and had a “necessary connection to an essential element of [the possessory] crime[] charged” … . The court thus erred in admitting the statement in evidence in the absence of a CPL 710.30 notice … . People v Tucker, 2019 NY Slip Op 05274, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT HEARSAY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING ONE OF THE ROBBERY VICTIMS, WHO DID NOT TESTIFY, FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT IN A LINEUP, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defendant should have been allowed to present evidence that one of the robbery victims, who did not testify, failed to identify the defendant at a lineup, even though there was evidence the victim falsely claimed he/she could not identify anyone:

The court erred in denying defendant’s application, expressly made under Chambers v Mississippi (410 US 284 [1973]), to receive testimony that one of the robbery victims, who was unavailable to testify at trial, failed to identify defendant at a lineup. Of the requirements for admission of exculpatory hearsay evidence, the only one in dispute is the reliability of the nonidentification. Although there were reasons to suspect that this victim may have falsely claimed to be unable to identify anyone in the lineup, the nonidentification plainly bore sufficient “indicia of reliability” under the applicable standard, which “hinges upon reliability rather than credibility”… . Where the proponent of the statement ” is able to establish this possibility of trustworthiness, it is the function of the jury alone to determine whether the declaration is sufficient to create reasonable doubt of guilt'” … . People v Cook, 2019 NY Slip Op 05210, First Dept 6-27-19

 

, ,

CONVICTION AFFIRMED, THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED THE APPELLATE DIVISION EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY AFFIRMING ON A SEARCH-RELATED GROUND THAT WAS NOT RULED ON BY SUPREME COURT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a three-judge dissent, affirmed the suppression determination, without explaining the facts. The dissent mentions the facts briefly but argues that the Appellate Division exceeded its jurisdiction by affirming the conviction on a search-related ground that was not ruled on by Supreme Court:

The present case clearly falls into the category where the trial court’s decision has discrete sections enabling an appellate court to discern which issues it has considered and decided, and yet the Appellate Division reviewed an issue that the trial court had not decided adversely to defendant, offering “an entirely distinct alternative ground for affirmance” … . If a suppression court writes a “fully articulated” decision adverse to a defendant … , but omits discussion of a particular issue raised by the defendant, our law mandates that an appellate court cannot resolve the issue and must remit. Whether our interpretation of CPL 470.15 (1), in LaFontaine [92 NY2d at 474] and its progeny, is “undesirable from a policy point of view” … is a question for another day. LaFontaine is the law and, until such time as that precedent is overruled, “we are constrained by that decision, and . . . cannot be arbitrary in applying it” … . People v Hill, 2019 NY Slip Op 05187, CtApp 6-27-19

 

ANY ERROR IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF THE TOP COUNT AND THE HIGHEST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WAS AVAILABLE TO THE JURY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined denying a request for the jury to be instructed on lesser included offenses in this murder case was harmless error:

Even assuming the court erred in denying defendant’s request to submit the crimes of manslaughter in the second degree and criminally negligent homicide to the jury as lesser included offenses of the charged crimes of murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the first degree, the error was harmless … . The Appellate Division properly concluded that defendant’s conviction of the lesser inclusory count of first-degree manslaughter, which it dismissed as required by CPL 300.40 (3) (b), did not change the harmless error analysis. Under the circumstances presented here, the jury’s guilty verdict on the indictment’s highest count despite the availability of the next lesser included offense for their consideration, “forecloses [defendant’s] challenge to the court’s refusal to charge the remote lesser included offenses” … , because it dispels any speculation as to whether the jury might have reached a guilty verdict on “still lower degree[s] of homicide” … . People v McIntosh, 2019 NY Slip Op 05186, CtApp 6-27-19

 

,

DENIAL OF THE REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON ASSAULT THIRD AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND THE ADMISSION OF THE 911 CALL AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE WERE NOT REVERSIBLE ERRORS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissenting opinion, as well as another brief dissenting opinion, determined the denial of defendant’s request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of assault third degree, and the admission of the 911 call as an excited utterance was harmless error. The facts are explained only in the dissent and are not summarized here:

Defendant failed to “show that there [was] a reasonable view of the evidence in the particular case that would support a finding that he committed the lesser included offense but not the greater” … . Although “[i]n determining whether such a reasonable view exists, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to [the] defendant” … , charging the lesser included offense here “would [have] force[d] the jury to resort to sheer speculation” … .

Nor does Supreme Court’s admission of the call between the victim and the 911 operator require reversal. “A spontaneous declaration or excited utterance—made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event—which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant’ is an exception to the prohibition on hearsay” … . “The test is whether the utterance was made before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective power to be yet in abeyance'” … . Assuming, without deciding, that it was error to admit the 911 call, any such error would have been harmless … . People v Almonte, 2019 NY Slip Op 05185, CtApp 6-27-19

 

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