You are here: / Criminal Law
,

IN THIS STRANGULATION CASE, A POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY ABOUT UNRELATED ALLEGED STRANGULATIONS INVOLVING OTHER COMPLAINANT’S DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s strangulation conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the admission of the testimony of a police officer describing unrelated allegations of strangulation by other complainants deprived defendant of a fair trial:

… County Court erred in admitting in evidence testimony from a police officer who responded to the scene regarding his observations of other, unnamed complainants in prior, unspecified cases. The officer was permitted to testify that he had taken photographs “once or twice” of complainants who had “alleged strangulations,” and that he could not recall having observed bruises on those other complainants. The officer’s testimony was used by the People in order to explain that the lack of marks on the neck of the victim in the present case did not mean that defendant did not strangle her. Indeed, during closing argument the People invited the jury to “recall the testimony of [the officer], that he did not observe any signs of bruising on [the victim’s] neck. You’ll also recall that he has been to other strangulations and investigated those, and he didn’t find any injuries there either.” We conclude that the officer’s testimony regarding prior, unrelated cases is entirely irrelevant to the instant case, and that it was error to admit that “irrelevant and highly prejudicial testimony” … . People v Iqbal, 2025 NY Slip Op 01746, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Here a police officer’s vague testimony about unrelated allegations of strangulation involving complainants other than the victim in this strangulation case deprived defendant of a fair trial.

 

,

PRIVATE MESSAGES SENT BY THE JUVENILE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A “TERRORISTIC THREAT” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the messages sent by the juvenile did not meet the criteria for a terroristic threat:

… [A] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when “with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population . . . [they] threaten[ ] to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense and thereby cause[ ] a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense” (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Here, petitioner presented testimony that respondent sent private messages to another student in a different school district that respondent was planning to commit a mass shooting to end bullying in his school. There was no evidence that those threats were made to anyone other than the student or that respondent requested that the student relay the threats to others. “A private conversation between immature teenage friends, without more, does not establish the element of intent to intimidate a civilian population” … . Matter of Jose M.F. (Seneca County Presentment Agency), 2025 NY Slip Op 01734, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Threatening to commit a mass shooting to end school bullying in a private message to another student does not satisfy the criteria for a “terroristic threat.”

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE SENTENCING COURT IN 2016 DID NOT USE DEFENDANT’S 2006 CONVICTION TO ENHANCE HIS SENTENCE DID NOT REQUIRE THE SORA COURT TO IGNORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WHICH WAS NEVER DIRECTLY ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS NEVER VACATED; THEREFORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY RELIED UPON BY THE SORA COURT TO ASSESS DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE RISK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined the fact that the resentencing court in 2016 found defendant’s 2006 conviction by guilty plea “constitutionally infirm” for purposes of sentencing did not require the SORA court to ignore the 2006 conviction. Defendant had never directly attacked the constitutionality of the 2006 conviction:

Defendant’s reliance on the resentencing court’s collateral determination that his 2006 conviction cannot be used as a predicate to impose an enhanced sentence is misplaced. As the resentencing court explained, it lacked authority to vacate the 2006 conviction and instead properly stressed that its determination governed only the question of whether the People could use the conviction to establish defendant’s status as a second child sexual assault felony offender for purposes of sentencing. Furthermore, at the resentencing hearing, defendant bore the burden of offering substantial evidence that the 2006 conviction is constitutionally infirm … . If defendant directly challenged the conviction’s constitutionality, however, he would face a higher burden of proof … . No court has determined that defendant’s 2006 conviction is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid under that more demanding standard. Nor have the People had an opportunity to be heard in opposition to defendant’s attempt to make such a showing. Against this backdrop, it is logical for the Guidelines to require an offender with a prior felony sex offense conviction to satisfy the higher evidentiary burden that they must meet to vacate or reverse that conviction, if they wish to avoid the override’s application.

Given that defendant failed to pursue any procedural pathway to vacate the 2006 conviction, we see no reason to depart from the Guidelines’ text stating that the override is triggered if “[t]he offender has a prior felony conviction for a sex crime” (Guidelines, override 1). We therefore apply the Guidelines and hold that the override was properly implemented … . People v Moss, 2025 NY Slip Op 01673, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: The fact that a sentencing court found a prior conviction “constitutionally infirm” such that the conviction was not used to enhance defendant’s sentence did not require that the SORA court ignore the prior conviction. The SORA court properly relied upon the prior conviction here.

 

,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S DRIVING-RELATED RECKLESS-ENDANGERMENT-FIRST-DEGREE CONVICTION STEMMING FROM HIS STRIKING SEVERAL CARS, CAUSING ONE TO FLIP, AND CRASHING INTO A HOUSE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT THE “DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE” ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department affirmed defendant reckless endangerment first degree conviction over a two-justice dissent which argued the evidence did not support the “depraved indifference” element of the offense:

From the dissent:

As the majority details, on the morning of June 27, 2018, defendant was driving his vehicle in the Town of Colonie, Albany County when he collided with several vehicles — causing one to flip over — before hitting a curb and crashing into the foundation of a house. We acknowledge that the People were able to rely on the circumstantial evidence surrounding defendant’s conduct to establish that he acted with the requisite mens rea of depraved indifference to human life … . Nevertheless, in reviewing these particular circumstances, we believe there is insufficient evidence to show that he was aware of, appreciated and disregarded the risks caused by his behavior (see id.). It is uncontroverted that defendant was driving recklessly and that, in doing so, he caused significant property damage as well as various degrees of injury to the victims. However, throughout this ordeal, which lasted less than five minutes and spanned less than half a mile, defendant was not driving well in excess of the posted speed limit, and there is no evidence that he ever drove against oncoming traffic or failed to obey traffic lights … . Even viewing the particular circumstances here in the light most favorable to the People, we do not believe that this case presents one of the rare circumstances where “the mens rea of depraved indifference . . . [is] established by risky behavior alone” … . People v Bender, 2025 NY Slip Op 01678, Third Dept 3-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into the proof necessary for the “depraved indifference” element of reckless endangerment first degree in context of reckless driving.​

 

, ,

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, DESPITE THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR MOTION WHICH WAS BASED ON THE SAME GROUND, I.E., DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHEN DEFENDANT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the defendant’s second motion to vacate his murder conviction (by guilty plea) based on his attorney’s erroneously informing him he would be eligible for parole haff-way through the 15-year sentence required a hearing. Defendant had made a prior motion on the same ground which was denied by another judge. The Third Department noted that ordinarily the prior motion would preclude the instant motion, but irregularities in the prior order denying the motion and the facts asserted in support of the instant motion justified giving the defendant a second chance:

… [T]he Legislature anticipated there would be times when it would be appropriate to reconsider issues previously decided on the merits (see CPL 440.10 [3] …). Doubtless those times should be rare; but, in our view, this is one of them.

Critically, the instant motion includes witness affidavits affirming that counsel assured defendant that he would be eligible for parole review as early as halfway through his minimum 15-year term of imprisonment (see CPL 440.30 [1] [a]; compare CPL 440.30 [4] [d]). Also attached is correspondence between defendant and counsel from December 2020. In one letter, defendant asks why counsel advised him that he would be eligible for early parole; counsel’s response does not address defendant’s question. Given defendant’s submissions, plus his relatively young age and inexperience with the criminal justice system at the time of his guilty plea, along with the irregularities in the June 2020 order, summary denial of defendant’s motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Accordingly, in the exercise of our broad authority to substitute our discretion for that of County Court … , we set aside the procedural bars to relief on the issue of counsel’s alleged erroneous parole advice and remit the matter for a hearing … . People v Phelps, 2025 NY Slip Op 01680, Third Dept 3-20-25

Practice Point: Here irregularities in the order denying defendant’s first motion to vacate his conviction and the facts presented in support of defendant’s second motion on the same ground justified consideration of the second motion.​

 

, ,

A JUROR, AN ATTORNEY, ALLEGEDLY TOLD THE OTHER JURORS THAT THE “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT” STANDARD COULD BE DISREGARDED; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A “JUROR MISCONDUCT” HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT (FIIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, holding the matter in abeyance, determined the allegations that a juror, A.H., an attorney, told the other jurors the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard did not apply to everything in the case necessitated an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict:​​

Some of the alleged conduct of juror A.H., an attorney, described in the supporting affidavits of two jurors, was an emphatic expression of the juror’s thoughts, his strong belief in defendant’s guilt, his understanding of the court’s instructions, his personal antipathy to the defendant, and, to the extent it was incorrect, his understanding of the law, none of which constitutes juror misconduct under CPL 330.30(2) … . However, the affidavit of one juror (E.A.) affirmed that A.H. “told us that we did not have to apply the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for everything in the case.” The other juror (S.D.) affirmed that A.H. averred, without any stated exception, “that the proof did not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Considering these attestations regarding A.H.’s alleged direction to the jury members to disregard the court’s instruction concerning the burden of proof, defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion to set aside the verdict. We hold the appeal in abeyance for that purpose. People v Hernandez, 2025 NY Slip Op 01589, Ct App 3-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into what is, and what is not, juror-misconduct, here in the context of a juror, an attorney, telling the other jurors the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard may be disregarded.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE MANDATORY FINES FOR THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW OFFENSES; AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED; AN APPEAL WAIVER DOES NOT PRECLUDE ARGUING THE PLEA WAS INVOLUNTARY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s guilty plea was not voluntary because he was not informed of the mandatory fines for the Vehicle and Traffic Law offenses. Although the error was not preserved, the “no actual or practical ability to object” preservation exception was invoked: An appeal waiver does not preclude the defendant from arguing the plea was involuntary:

An exception to the preservation requirement exists where, as here, a defendant had “no actual or practical ability to object” prior to the imposition of the fines by the sentencing court … . Further, a valid appeal waiver does not preclude a defendant from challenging a plea as involuntary, where the court fails to advise a defendant of a component of their sentence before it is imposed … .

Supreme Court erred in failing to inform defendant at the time of his plea that the sentences for two of the offenses to which he was pleading guilty included mandatory fines (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [b]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [a]) The failure to “ensure that . . . defendant, before pleading guilty, ha[d] a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences” … , requires vacatur of the plea. People v Padilla-Zuniga, 2025 NY Slip Op 01563, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: The failure to inform the defendant of mandatory fines renders the guilty plea involuntary.

Practice Point: Here the “no actual or practical ability to object” exception to the preservation requirement applied.

Practice Point: An appeal waiver does not preclude the argument that the plea was involuntarily entered.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT’S MAXIMUM SENTENCE WAS 20 YEARS BUT THE JUDGE REPEATEDLY TOLD DEFENDANT HE WAS FACING 45 YEARS; THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY ENTERED; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s guilty plea was not entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently because the judge repeatedly told the defendant he was facing 45 years in prison when his sentence was capped at 20. The dissent argued the error was not preserved:

The issue on appeal is whether defendant Marquese Scott’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Supreme Court made an egregious error during the plea proceedings, repeatedly asserting that defendant faced up to 45 years’ incarceration if found guilty after trial, when his maximum exposure was statutorily capped at 20 years. As we have long recognized, inaccurate information regarding a sentence is a significant factor in determining whether a plea was voluntary. Given defendant’s young age, his inexperience facing serious charges with the risk of consecutive sentencing, and the vast disparity between the plea offer of 6 to 8 years and the court’s erroneous assertion that he faced 25 years more than the law allowed, we hold that defendant’s guilty plea was not the result of a free and informed choice. Accordingly, defendant’s plea cannot stand. * * *

From the dissent:

With only narrow exceptions, we have unequivocally required a defendant to preserve a challenge to the voluntariness of their plea by making “a motion to withdraw the plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10” … . People v Scott, 2025 NY Slip Op 01562, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: A guilty plea entered after the defendant is erroneously told he is facing 45 years in prison when the sentence is statutorily capped at 20 is not voluntary.​

Practice Point: Here the dissent argued the majority should not have carved out a new exception to the preservation requirement to consider the merits of this case.

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LACK OF PREPARATION AND FAILURE TO LIMIT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant was not provided with effective assistance of counsel:

… [T]he record reveals that on several occasions as the case neared trial, including during the Mapp and Molineux hearings, and subsequently at the trial defense counsel was unfamiliar with and had not reviewed relevant and critical discovery obtained from defendant’s cell phones following the execution of a search warrant. For example, defense counsel initially failed to object to the admission of a flash drive containing the entire contents of defendant’s cell phones, but, when the People later isolated a portion of the cell phone contents as a separate exhibit for the jury, defense counsel objected—although the contents had already been admitted—and acknowledged that he had not had a chance to review “the exact exhibit.” Defense counsel also failed to object to the portion of those contents containing voice notes, which constituted improper hearsay … . Additionally, defense counsel’s failure to review the contents of defendant’s cell phones had the result that he could not appreciate how important certain text messages and other communications were to the People’s case. Defense counsel belatedly sought to admit certain physical evidence of financial transactions that had not previously been disclosed during discovery to counter the communications presented by the People. County Court, however, precluded that physical evidence. Furthermore, defense counsel never sought a limiting instruction on the Molineux evidence that the People were permitted to introduce … . We conclude that “[t]here is simply no legitimate explanation for” defense counsel’s failure to properly investigate the law, facts, and issues relevant to the case and that “[t]his failure seriously compromised defendant’s right to a fair trial” … . People v Cousins, 2025 NY Slip Op 01535, Fourth Dept 3-14-25

Practice Point: Here defense counsel did not review evidence provided in discovery and failed to seek a limiting instruction on the Molineux evidence the People were allowed to introduce. A new trial was ordered.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT HAD USED ALCOHOL TO EXCESS AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME WAS CONFLICTING AND INSUFFICIENT; IN ADDITION, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY OR UNDER SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT; THEREFORE 25 POINTS WERE TAKEN OFF DEFENDANT’S RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence did not support the finding that defendant was intoxicated at the time of the offense. In addition the SORA court wrongly found that defendant was in custody or under supervision at the time of alleged misconduct. Therefore a total of 25 points were wrongly applied to the risk-level assessment:

… [I]n order to demonstrate that [defendant] was abusing . . . alcohol at the time of the offense, the People [were required to] show by clear and convincing evidence that [defendant] used alcohol in excess . . . at the time of the crime” … . Here, the victim informed a caseworker that, on the night of that incident, defendant had been “outside by the fire drinking.” Defendant’s ex-wife also indicated in her victim impact statement that defendant was “drunk” on the night of that incident, but it is unclear whether the source of her information was the victim or hearsay from an unidentified third-party with whom the victim had spoken and whose reliability could not be tested … . In contrast, the victim denied that defendant had been drinking at the time of the second incident and indicated that defendant “normally doesn’t drink.” In his interview with probation, defendant denied “current alcohol or substance use and . . . any current or past treatment for such.” We conclude that there is no indication in the record that defendant abused alcohol by drinking in excess, that defendant became intoxicated, or that alcohol affected his behavior during the incident … . Nor is it “clear from the record what time the drinking occurred, how much [defendant] had to drink, and how much time passed before he abused [the] victim” … . The People thus failed to establish that defendant abused alcohol at the time of the offensive conduct, and the court erred in assessing 15 points under risk factor 11. People v Crane, 2025 NY Slip Op 01530,Fourth Dept 3-14-25

Practice Point: Here the evidence that defendant had used alcohol to excess at the time of the crime was weak and conflicting, rendering it insufficient to support the 15 points assessed on that ground.

 

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