You are here: / Criminal Law

SENTENCING COURT MUST MAKE A THRESHOLD DETERMINATION WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS IN THIS FIRST DEGREE RAPE CASE, SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department vacated defendant’s sentence for rape first degree and remitted the matter for a determination of defendant’s eligibility for youthful offender status:

… [A] “youth” is defined as “a person charged with a crime alleged to have been committed when he [or she] was at least [16] years old and less than [19] years old” (CPL 720.10 [1]), and an “eligible youth” is “a youth who is eligible to be found a youthful offender” (CPL 720.10 [2]). “Every youth is so eligible” (CPL 720.10 [2]) — subject to certain statutory exceptions including, as pertinent here, a conviction for “rape in the first degree . . ., except as provided in [CPL 720.10 (3)]” … . To that end, CPL 720.10 (3) provides, in relevant part, that “a youth who has been convicted of . . . rape in the first degree . . . is an eligible youth if the court determines that one or more [statutory] factors exist,” including “mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed” … . …

Defendant was 17 years old at the time of the underlying offense and, despite his conviction of rape in the first degree, he was not statutorily precluded from being found to be an eligible youth (see CPL 720.10 [3]). Where, as here, a defendant has been convicted of an enumerated sex offense … , the sentencing court, “in order to fulfill its responsibility under CPL 720.20 (1) to make a youthful offender determination for every eligible youth, . . . must make the threshold determination as to whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3)” … — “‘even where the defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request’ pursuant to a plea bargain” … . People v Robertucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 04057, Third Dept 5-23-19

 

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the Superior Court Information (SCI) to which defendant pled guilty was jurisdictionally defective because it did not include an offense that was charged in the felony complaint or a lesser included offense:

… [T]he waiver of indictment and SCI are jurisdictionally defective because they did not charge an “offense for which the defendant was held for action of a grand jury” (CPL 195.20 …). Pursuant to CPL 195.20, a waiver of indictment must contain “each offense to be charged in the [SCI]” which “may include any offense for which the defendant was held for action of a grand jury and any offense or offenses properly joinable.” To that end, “a defendant is held for the action of a [g]rand [j]ury on both the offense charged in the felony complaint as well as its lesser included offenses” … , because, “[f]or purposes of waiver of indictment, a charge that is a lesser included offense of a crime charged in the felony complaint is viewed as the ‘same offense’ and may be substituted for the original charge in a waiver of indictment and SCI”… . Accordingly, “a defendant may waive indictment and plead guilty to an SCI that names a different offense from that charged in the felony complaint only when the crime named in the SCI is a lesser included offense of the original charge” … . …

Inasmuch as it is possible to commit the crime charged in the felony complaint — possession of a loaded weapon — without committing the crime charged in the SCI — possession with intent to use the weapon unlawfully — the crime charged in the SCI is not a lesser included offense of the former and the SCI could not serve as a proper jurisdictional predicate for defendant’s guilty plea … . People v Diego, 2019 NY Slip Op 04054, Third Dept 5-22-19

, , ,

NEITHER THE VICTIM WITNESS PROTECTION ACT NOR THE MANDATORY VICTIM RESTITUTION ACT PROVIDES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR A JUDGMENT BASED SOLELY UPON RESTITUTION ORDERED IN A CRIMINAL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that neither the Victim Witness Protection Act (VWPA) nor the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) provided for a private right of action for a judgment based solely upon restitution ordered in a criminal case:

… [T]he VWPA makes civil remedies available to collect restitution but does not make restitution a civil judgment that can simply be enforced in a private suit … . Rather, a victim may pursue a civil action for damages in connection with the injuries that resulted in a restitution order, and the restitution order may provide assistance in proving liability, but the petitioner may not rely entirely on the restitution order and the amount ordered in the criminal action. Thus, the petitioner can separately plead and prove liability and damages under either a statutory or a common-law cause of action if the restitution order fails to satisfy the victim … . …

Some cases may support the conclusion that under the MVRA, a victim who has obtained a lien on property based on a restitution order may enforce that lien in a special court proceeding … . However, these cases provide no support for the conclusion that a victim may enforce the abstract judgment itself without obtaining a lien, especially given that this would contradict the language of 18 USC § 3664(m), explicitly requiring a lien. Petitioner has obtained an abstract of judgment, but never recorded it as a lien on defendant’s property or brought an action to enforce it. … [T]he MVRA does not provide a cause of action for a private victim to enforce an abstract judgment on a restitution order, which is exactly what petitioner is seeking to do. Therefore, petitioner has no standing under the MVRA. Matter of Mikhlov v Festinger, 2019 NY Slip Op 04046, First Dept 5-23-19

 

,

911 CALL MADE FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE ASSAULT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the victim’s 911 call was properly admitted as an excited utterance, even though the call was made about five minutes after the assault with a butcher knife:

“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 determination of admissibility of a statement as an excited utterance is entrusted in the first instance to the trial court, which “must assess not only the nature of the startling event and the amount of time which has elapsed between the occurrence and the statement, but also the activities of the declarant in the interim to ascertain if there was significant opportunity to deviate from the truth” … . Here, the evidence demonstrated that the 911 calls qualified as excited utterances. First, the nature of the attack on the complainant was the type of startling event that would cause “physical shock or trauma” … . Further, the 911 calls were made only approximately five minutes after the event, and in those intervening minutes, the complainant ran across the street from the scene of the incident to his apartment to bandage his wound. Under these circumstances, this short interval of time did not “detract[ ] from [the] spontaneity” of the statements … . People v Jaber, 2019 NY Slip Op 03988, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

,

AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO PARKED UNOCCUPIED CARS, SMELL OF MARIHUANA (FROM OUTSIDE THE CLOSED UNOCCUPIED CAR) PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE CAR, OFFICER’S SUBJECTIVE INTENT TO SEARCH THE CAR BEFORE HE SMELLED THE MARIHUANA IS IRRELEVANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the warrantless search of defendant’s car, which was parked outside the apartment where defendant had been arrested, was valid under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The officer who opened the car door with keys taken from the defendant, testified that he smelled marihuana as he approached the car, and that he intended to search the car before he smelled the marijuana. The Third Department held that the officer’s subjective intent to search before he smelled the marihuana did not invalidate the search, and the officer’s claim he could smell marihuana outside a closed car was a credibility issue resolved by County Court:

The automobile exception to the warrant requirement is not based solely upon the mobility of vehicles, but also on the “reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile” … . Thus, the automobile exception is not limited to vehicles that are moving or occupied when observed by police and may also be applied when, as here, a vehicle is parked in “a public place where access [is] not meaningfully restricted” … . …

The warrantless search was permissible under the automobile exception. “[I]t is well established that the odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle” … . …

… [P]robable cause analysis is based upon reasonableness, and a search or seizure is permissible where, as here, “the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the action” … . As the smell of marihuana outside the vehicle objectively provided probable cause for the warrantless search, the lieutenant’s subjective intentions are irrelevant. People v Hines, 2019 NY Slip Op 03853, Third Dept 5-16-19

 

,

PAROLE OFFICER’S SEARCH OF PAROLEE’S APARTMENT, BASED UPON A TIP FROM A PERSON KNOWN TO THE PAROLE OFFICER, WAS SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the parole officer’s, Rosa’s, search of defendant-parolee’s apartment, which was based on a tip from a person known to the parole officer, was supported by reasonable suspicion:

Although a parolee does “not surrender his [or her] constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures[,] . . . what may be unreasonable with respect to an individual who is not on parole may be reasonable with respect to one who is” … . Accordingly, a search of a parolee undertaken by a parole officer is constitutional if “the conduct of the parole officer was rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duty . . . [and was] substantially related to the performance of duty in the particular circumstances” … . A parole officer’s duty is twofold and sometimes inconsistent in nature because a parole officer not only “has an obligation to detect and to prevent parole violations for the protection of the public from the commission of further crimes[, but] he [or she] also has a responsibility to the parolee to prevent violations of parole and to assist [the parolee] to a proper reintegration into [the parolee’s] community” … .

Here, there can be little doubt that Rosa’s search of defendant’s residence due to the informant’s tip was reasonably related to Rosa’s duties as a parole officer … . Therefore, the key inquiry is whether Rosa, based upon the information provided by the informant, had reasonable suspicion to conduct the search … . Rosa’s testimony at the suppression hearing revealed that the information was not from an anonymous tipster (compare People v Burry, 52 AD3d at 858), but rather was from another parolee with whom Rosa was familiar and with whom he had interacted prior to receiving the information. Rosa testified that the informant indicated that he or she had firsthand knowledge of the drug activity at defendant’s residence. Therefore, based upon the circumstances of this case — including that defendant had been on parole for less than a month and therefore had no proven track record of compliance with parole rules — Rosa’s search of defendant’s residence was founded on reasonable suspicion and, as such, was lawful … . People v Wade, 2019 NY Slip Op 03851. Third Dept 5-16-19

 

, , ,

MOLINEUX/SANDOVAL HEARING IN THE HARVEY WEINSTEIN SEXUAL MISCONDUCT PROSECUTION WAS PROPERLY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AND THE RECORD OF THE HEARING WAS PROPERLY SEALED, NEWS-MEDIA COMPANIES’ PETITION TO UNSEAL THE RECORD DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department denied the Article 78 petition brought by news-media companies seeking to unseal the Molineux/Sandoval hearing transcript in the felony sexual misconduct prosecution of Harvey Weinstein. The presiding judge had closed the hearing to the public and sealed the record of it:

While the First Amendment guarantees the public and the press a qualified right of access to criminal trials … , this right of access may be limited where courtroom closure is necessitated by a compelling state governmental interest, and where the closure is narrowly tailored to serve that interest … . Such compelling interests may include the defendant’s right to a fair trial, including the right to “fundamental fairness in the jury selection process” … . …

Proceedings cannot be closed unless specific findings are made on the record, demonstrating that “closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest” … . Where the interest asserted is the right of the accused to a fair trial, specific findings must be made demonstrating that, “there is a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent,” and “reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant’s fair trial rights” … .

The subject matter of the Molineux /Sandoval hearing – allegations of prior uncharged sexual offenses by the defendant, the admissibilty of which is disputed – was likely to be prejudicial and inflammatory. Further, some or all of the allegations may have been determined to be inadmissible at trial, or may not be offered at trial even if found potentially admissible. Contrary to petitioners’ suggestion, the People have represented that some of the information has not yet been made public. Matter of New York Times Co. v Burke, 2019 NY Slip Op 03903, First Dept 5-16-19

 

,

CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSLI) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS PROCURED WITHOUT A WARRANT, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER, SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the cell site location information (CSLI) should not have been admitted because the information was procured without a warrant. The error was deemed harmless. The Second Department further determined the sentences for criminal sexual act and criminal impersonation should have been concurrent:

The defendant contends that the People violated his federal constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures (see US Const Amend IV) by obtaining his historical cell site location information (hereinafter CSLI) without first obtaining a warrant. Although the defendant did not object on this ground to the admission of the CSLI at trial, his contention has merit and should be considered in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Carpenter v United States (_____ US _____, 138 S Ct 2206). Contrary to the People’s contention, under the circumstances, the trial court’s order requiring release of the CSLI under the Stored Communications Act (18 USC § 2703[d]), which order made no express finding of probable cause, was not effectively a warrant supported by probable cause … . …

As the People correctly concede, because criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50[1]) constituted one of the offenses and a material element of the other offense, criminal impersonation in the first degree (Penal Law § 190.26[1]), the trial court should not have imposed consecutive sentences on these convictions … . People v Taylor, 2019 NY Slip Op 03823, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

,

PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF AN APARTMENT DEPENDED UPON INFORMATION FROM THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, A DARDEN HEARING WAS THEREFORE NECESSARY, MATTER REMITTED FOR THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have held a Darden hearing because the detective observed the confidential informant (CI) enter the building but did not observe the CI go to the apartment where the drugs were allegedly purchased. Therefore probable cause for the search of the apartment depended upon the CI’s information. The appeal was held in abeyance and the matter was remitted for the hearing:

The Court of Appeals has held that a Darden hearing is necessary where there is insufficient evidence to establish probable cause without information provided by a confidential informant … . “[A] Darden rule is necessary in order to fulfill the underlying purpose of Darden: insuring that the confidential informant both exists and gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause, while protecting the informant’s identity. The surest way to accomplish this task is to produce the informant for an in camera examination” …  . This procedure is “designed to protect against the contingency, of legitimate concern to a defendant, that the informer might have been wholly imaginary and the communication from him [or her] entirely fabricated”  … . “[T]he court should conduct an in camera inquiry outside the presence of defendant and his [or her] counsel, and make a summary report regarding the existence of the informer and communications made by the CI to the police, taking precautions to protect the anonymity of the CI to the maximum extent possible” … . People v Nettles, 2019 NY Slip Op 03816, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S PHONE CONVERSATION WITH HIS MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION, SENTENCE FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCE FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a recording of defendant’s phone conversation with his mother, made when defendant was in jail, should not have been admitted as an adoptive admission. The error was deemed harmless however. The Second Department further determined that the sentences for criminal possession of a weapon should be concurrent with the sentence for murder. There was no evidence the weapon was possessed for an unlawful purpose other than the shooting:

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court should not have permitted the People to introduce into evidence, as an adoptive admission of guilt, a recording of a telephone call that he made to his mother while he was incarcerated at Rikers Island Correctional Facility. We agree. “Generally, an adoptive admission is allowed when a party acknowledges and assents to something already uttered by another person, which thus becomes effectively the party’s own admission” . Here, the People failed to establish that the defendant assented to the statements uttered by his mother during the telephone call … . …

The evidence adduced at trial failed to establish that the defendant possessed the gun for an unlawful purpose unrelated to shooting at the intended victim, resulting in the death of the victim (see Penal Law § 265.03[1][b]…), or that his possession of a gun was separate and distinct from his shooting of the victim (see Penal Law § 265.03[3] … ). Accordingly, the terms of imprisonment imposed upon the defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree should run concurrently with the sentence imposed upon his conviction of murder in the second degree. People v King, 2019 NY Slip Op 03813, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

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