You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO KILL, IN ADDITION, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION UNDER AN ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY THEORY WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined there was legally insufficient evidence that the defendant shared the co-defendant’s intent to kill, and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The co-defendant walked up to the defendant on the street and shot him. The defendant was present at the scene and picked the co-defendant up and drove away after the shooting. The defendant was convicted under an accomplice or accessorial liability theory:

A “defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, alone, is insufficient for a finding of criminal liability” … . Indeed, evidence that a defendant was at the crime scene and even assisted the perpetrator in removing evidence of that crime is insufficient to support a defendant’s conviction where the People fail to offer evidence from which the jury could rationally exclude the possibility that the defendant was without knowledge of the perpetrator’s intent … . “An aider and abettor must share the intent or purpose of the principal actor, and there can be no partnership in an act where there is no community of purpose”… . We have no difficulty concluding that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences by which the jury could have found that defendant intentionally aided the codefendant after the murder, but we cannot conclude that there is legally sufficient evidence to support the inference that defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to kill the victim … . The People offered no motive for the crime … , and the evidence indicating that defendant was staring at the victim 40 minutes before the shooting and that defendant may have dropped off the codefendant at the bar prior to the shooting was plainly insufficient to establish that defendant was aware of and shared the codefendant’s intent to kill the victim … . * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, that the evidence is legally sufficient, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury … , we further conclude that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence … . A review of the weight of the evidence requires us to first determine whether an acquittal would not have been unreasonable … . If so, we must ” weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony’ ” … . We conclude that an acquittal would not have been unreasonable in this case and, based on the weight of the evidence, we further conclude that the jury was not justified in finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Mcdonald, 2019 NY Slip Op 03494, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

,

HAVING DEFENDANT WAIT WITH TWO POLICE OFFICERS WHILE A THIRD TOOK HIS ID TO AN APARTMENT TO VERIFY DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WAS VISITING A FRIEND IN THE APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR, CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division in this street stop case, determined having defendant “stand right there” with two police officers, while a third took defendant’s ID to an apartment to verify defendant’s claim he was visiting a friend there, was not justified under De Bour:

Defendant … was approached by New York Police Department officers after they observed him exiting and reentering a building in a New York City Housing Authority development several times. Upon the officers’ request, defendant explained that he was visiting a friend who lived in the building. The officers asked defendant for his identification, which he provided. An officer then took defendant’s identification to the eleventh floor of the building to verify whether the occupant of the apartment defendant identified knew him … . Another officer instructed defendant to “stand right there” under the watch of two officers. When the first officer returned, having determined that the occupant of the apartment did not know defendant, defendant was arrested for trespassing. At the precinct, officers conducted a search of defendant’s person incident to his arrest and recovered 42 bags of crack cocaine from his groin area. * * *

At its inception, this was “a general, nonthreatening encounter in which an individual is approached for an articulable reason and asked briefly about his or her identity, destination, or reason for being in the area” … . That request implicated only level one of De Bour … and required only an objective credible reason to make basic inquiries of defendant … . On this record, the initial inquiry was justified.

However, the record demonstrates that the encounter thereafter rose beyond a level-one request for information, which the People failed to justify as lawful. Consequently, the People have failed to preserve any argument that the encounter in this case was justified under levels two or three of De Bour. People v Hill, 2019 NY Slip Op 03405, CtApp 5-2-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED A QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL BECAUSE OF COUNSEL’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WITHOUT A HEARING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Stein, determined that defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction on the ground his attorney (Chabrowe) was ineffective because of a conflict of interest. Defendant alleged a party (Salaam) who was present at the scene of the depraved indifference murder committed by defendant was represented by Chabrowe and had paid Chabrowe’s fees on defendant’s behalf:

Although defendant had informed the trial court during the Gomberg inquiry that he or his family had hired Chabrowe, he alleged that Salaam paid Chabrowe to represent defendant, resulting in an undisclosed and “unwaivable” conflict, and that Chabrowe failed to explain any possible conflict of interest related to Salaam’s payment of defendant’s legal fees. In addition to his own affidavit, defendant submitted an affirmation from his current appellate counsel, who relayed details of a conversation he affirmed he had with Chabrowe about the payment of defendant’s legal fees. Defendant also relied on recorded prison phone calls, which purportedly corroborate defendant’s allegation that Salaam hired and paid for his attorney. * * *

We review the summary denial of a CPL 440.10 motion under an abuse of discretion standard. On this record, we conclude that Supreme Court abused its discretion in determining that a hearing was not warranted to address the allegations contained in defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion regarding Chabrowe’s representation of defendant and whether any conflict of interest existed warranting reversal. People v Brown, 2019 NY Slip Op 03404, CtApp 5-2-19

 

THE COURT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT PROCURED BY THE PEOPLE AFTER A MISTRIAL, THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS A NULLITY, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the second superseding indictment, procured after a mistrial, was a nullity:

Before trial commenced, the People obtained a superseding indictment … . A jury trial on the superseding indictment ensued; however, after the jury was impaneled and sworn, defendant’s motion for a mistrial was granted. The People subsequently obtained a second superseding indictment … . …

… [T]he second superseding indictment is a nullity and assert, therefore, that defendant’s conviction must be reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings on the first superseding indictment. In declaring a mistrial, County Court did not dismiss the superseding indictment or authorize the People to re-present new charges to a grand jury. Accordingly, the People were limited to retrying defendant upon the superseding indictment, and the second superseding indictment was a nullity … . Where, as here, an indictment is a nullity, “any action or consequence that flowed from its filing . . . was necessarily a nullity as well”… . Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed. People v Moseley, 2019 NY Slip Op 03408, Third Dept 5-2-19

 

,

THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A HOME TO RETRIEVE A HANDGUN DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER A CHAIR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE POLICE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER ANY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE OFFICER DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER THE CHAIR, THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY WHEN THE OFFICER REENTERED THE HOME TO LOOK UNDER THE CHAIR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the handgun seized in a warrantless search inside a home should have been suppressed, and subsequent statements made by the defendant should have been suppressed as the fruit of the illegal search. The defendant’s psychiatrist had called the police to tell them defendant had a gun and was paranoid. The defendant had previously threatened to shoot police officers. Officer Temple was given permission by defendant’s mother to enter the home. Then defendant ran to the back of the house and threw something under a chair. After the defendant was in custody Officer Temple went back into the house, lifted up the chair and seized a handgun from under the chair. Up until that point Officer Temple did not know what the object was, so the plain-view justification for a warrantless search was not available:

Contrary to the People’s contention, the consent of the defendant’s mother to the police to enter the home to speak with the defendant did not constitute a consent to Officer Temple’s search of the living room … . Moreover, contrary to the People’s contention, the seizure of the firearm does not fall within the plain view exception … . Officer Temple’s testimony as to what he believed the object was, based upon the 911 call, his police experience, and military training, does not meet the requirement of the plain view doctrine, since he testified that he did not know what the object was until he moved the chair … . The People do not assert on appeal that the seizure was lawful pursuant to the emergency exception and, in any event, any exigency abated once the defendant was detained … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the physical evidence that was recovered from the residence must be suppressed, as the search was illegal, and the defendant’s subsequent statements to law enforcement officials must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree … . People v Hickey, 2019 NY Slip Op 03364, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

,

STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT WHEN HE WAS HANDCUFFED IN THE BACK SEAT OF A POLICE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, TANGIBLE EVIDENCE RETRIEVED AS A RESULT OF THE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AS WELL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s statements, made when he was handcuffed in the back seat of a police car, should have been suppressed. Defendant had possession of a wallet and had demanded money from the owner of the wallet in exchange for its return. The owner of the wallet went to the police. The police spoke to the defendant on the phone, and he again demanded money for the wallet. The defendant again demanded money for the wallet when the police went to his house. The wallet was retrieved after defendant made the statements in the police car, so the wallet should have been suppressed as well:

Not only was the defendant handcuffed in the back seat of a police vehicle, the detectives testified that the defendant was bargaining with them for his freedom by offering to get the wallet if they would remove the handcuffs and release him. Detective Bookstein specifically testified that the defendant was not free to leave the police vehicle. The record also demonstrates that the statements that the defendant made to the detectives during their conversation with him about the wallet were the result of the functional equivalent of interrogation and should have been suppressed … . People v Torres. 2019 NY Slip Op 03380, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

, ,

FINDING OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AGAINST THE CHAIR OF THE NYS PAROLE BOARD WAS WARRANTED, ALTHOUGH ORDERED TO CONDUCT A DE NOVO HEARING ON PETITIONER-INMATE’S APPLICATION FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE, THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BOARD DENIED PAROLE BASED ON THE SEVERITY OF THE OFFENSE ALONE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE STRONG FACTORS WHICH FAVORED RELEASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that the Chair of the NYS Parole Board was properly held in contempt for failing to comply with an order granting petitioner, in inmate who had served 40 years in prison for murdering a police office, a de novo hearing on his application for parole release. The court noted that this is the first time a court had held a parole board chair in contempt. The court found that the Board based its denial of parole solely on the severity of the offense, and did not consider the strong factors favoring release, in violation of the order:

Here, under the unique facts of this particular case, we agree with the Supreme Court’s exercise of its discretion in granting the petitioner’s motion to hold the appellant … in civil contempt for the Board’s failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment dated October 2, 2015. In the judgment dated October 2, 2015, the Supreme Court, after concluding, among other things, that the Board’s determination to deny parole release was not supported by an application of the factual record to the statutory factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i, that the Board’s determination was based exclusively on the severity of the petitioner’s offense, and that there was no rational support in the record for the Board’s determination, remitted the matter to the Board “to make a de novo determination on petitioner’s request for parole release” to be held before a different panel of the Board.

As previously noted, the Board did not appeal from that judgment. Rather, it purported to comply with the judgment by rendering a new determination following a de novo interview before a different panel and, in its written decision and in the transcript of the interview, purported to comply with its responsibilities to consider the requisite statutory factors. However, the Supreme Court, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, decided that the Board again denied parole release exclusively on the basis of the underlying conviction without giving consideration to the statutory factors. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that a finding of civil contempt was warranted. Matter of Ferrante v Stanford, 2019 NY Slip Op 03334, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE POLICE RECEIVED AN ANONYMOUS TIP THAT A MAN MATCHING DEFENDANT’S DESCRIPTION HAD A GUN, THE POLICE SAW NO SIGN OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN THEY APPROACHED AND QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT, THE SUBSEQUENT SEIZURE AND FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT WAS ILLEGAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the police illegally seized and frisked the defendant when they had only a level two right to inquire. The police were given an anonymous tip that a black man in a bodega wearing a black coat with a fur hood had a gun. The defendant matched the description, but he was seized and frisked in the absence of any sign of criminal activity. The fact that the anonymous tip tended to identify a specific person was not enough to justify the seizure. The handgun should have been suppressed:

The police may not stop and frisk a person based solely on information furnished by an anonymous source that the person is carrying a gun … . Since an anonymous tip “seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity,” it can only give rise to reasonable suspicion if accompanied by sufficient indicia of reliability … . The tip must “be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person” .​.. . …

One of the officers asked defendant if everything was okay, and he replied in the affirmative. Defendant then attempted to pass by the officers and exit the store. He was prevented from exiting when one of the officers “sidestepped to [his] right,” in order to “prevent [defendant] from leaving the store.” The officer testified at the hearing that they “decided to frisk [defendant] for [their] safety, since it came over as male with a firearm and he fit the description.” They walked defendant to the counter, which was 5 to 10 feet away. Defendant put his hands on the counter, and the officers proceeded to frisk him. The officer testified that defendant placed his hand inside his jacket pocket, whereupon he used force to pull defendant’s wrist from the pocket. The officer testified that when he grabbed defendant’s wrist a silver firearm fell to the ground.

The People argue that defendant’s action in putting his hand in his pocket gave rise to reasonable suspicion. The problem with this argument is that defendant was already seized prior to this point.  People v Brown, 2019 NY Slip Op 03305, First Dept 4-30-19

,

POLICE EFFECTIVELY SEIZED DEFENDANT BY BLOCKING DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WITH TWO POLICE CARS, BECAUSE THE SEIZURE TOOK PLACE IN THE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE SUSPICION A PARTICULAR PERSON WAS INVOLVED IN A CRIME THE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and suppressing the tangible evidence, determined the police effectively seized defendant by blocking in defendant’s vehicle with two police cars without sufficient cause:

The conviction arises from a police encounter during which an officer approached the parked vehicle in which defendant was a passenger and observed that defendant was in possession of a handgun. We agree with defendant that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the initial seizure of the vehicle, and thus Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress both the tangible property seized, i.e., the weapon, and statements defendant made to the police at the time of his arrest. Here, police officers effectively seized the vehicle in which defendant was riding when their two patrol cars entered the parking lot in such a manner as to prevent the vehicle from being driven away … . The police had, at most, a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” which permitted them to approach the vehicle and make a common-law inquiry of its occupants. They did not, however, have “reasonable suspicion that [a] particular individual was involved in a felony or misdemeanor” to justify the seizure that occurred here …, and thus the weapon and defendant’s statements should have been suppressed. People v Suttles, 2019 NY Slip Op 03158, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE DEFENDANT IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE BECAUSE NO REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE POLICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s weapons possession and sale convictions because the state Attorney General did not have the authority to prosecute the case. The Attorney General’s authority to prosecute a criminal case is triggered when a request is made by the head of an appropriate agency, here the Superintendent of the State Police. No such request was in the stipulated record on appeal:

It is well settled that the Attorney General lacks general prosecutorial authority and has the power to prosecute only where specifically permitted by statute … . As relevant here, Executive Law § 63 (3) grants the Attorney General prosecutorial authority “[u]pon request of . . . the head of any . . . department, authority, division, or agency of the state” (emphasis added). Although the People assert that the Attorney General had authority to prosecute this matter under section 63 (3) based on a request made by the State Police, such a request would confer that authority only if made by the head of the division, i.e., the Superintendent of State Police … . Moreover, “the State bears the burden of showing that the [division or] agency head has asked for the prosecutorial participation of the Attorney General’s office” … . People v Wassell, 2019 NY Slip Op 03187, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

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