You are here: / Criminal Law
,

AMENDMENT OF THE INDICTMENT ON THE EVE OF TRIAL CHANGED THE THEORY OF PROSECUTION FROM ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON TO CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined that the People should not have been allowed to amend the indictment on the eve of trial. The indictment charged defendant with possession of a weapon when he visited his girlfriend on October 20. The People sought to amend the indictment to allege possession of a weapon on October 22, when the weapon was found pursuant to a search of defendant’s residence:

By seeking, on the eve of trial, to amend the indictment to include the days following the purported incident with the former girlfriend, the People changed the theory of their case from the defendant’s actual possession of a weapon, as witnessed and attested to by the former girlfriend, to constructive possession, meaning his exercise of dominion or control over an area of the defendant’s residence where a loaded weapon was found … . Defense counsel, in opposing the amendment, asserted that he had relied upon the indictment and the VDF [voluntary disclosure form] prepared by the District Attorney’s Office, giving the date of the offense as October 20, 2015, in preparing for the case, including defense counsel’s efforts to prove, through time cards and testimony, that it was impossible for the defendant to have been at his former girlfriend’s apartment at the time of the incident on October 20, 2015. As such, defense counsel presented evidence that the defense had been substantially undermined by the amendment of the indictment and that, effectively, he was forced to forgo an alibi-type defense … . People v McLean, 2019 NY Slip Op 02356, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED FIVE HOURS AWAY FROM THE COURT AND HIS ATTORNEY, REPEATED REQUESTS TO MOVE DEFENDANT CLOSER WERE GRANTED BUT NOT COMPLIED WITH, DEFENDANT MOVED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AT SENTENCING, GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY DEFENDANT HAD EFFECTIVELY BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, INQUIRY INTO THE VOLUNTARINESS OF OF THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the sentencing judge should have inquired into the voluntariness of defendant’s guilty plea before accepting it. The defendant had been housed more than one hundred miles from the court and his attorney. Repeated requests to move the defendant closer to allow consultation with his attorney were granted but not complied with. When the court set the matter down for trial anyway, the defendant pled guilty:

The Supreme Court ordered that the defendant be moved to Rikers Island, or at a minimum, a correctional facility closer to the court. The court issued numerous orders over the following two weeks directing that the defendant be moved, none of which was complied with. Each appearance required the defendant to travel at least five hours each way. Defense counsel continued to argue that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision was violating the defendant’s constitutional rights to consult with his attorney and to defend this case. The court noted that it would be nearly impossible to hold a jury and try the case under these conditions. The court nevertheless stated that the trial would commence, regardless of where the defendant was housed. The very next court date, the defendant agreed to plead guilty.

Two weeks later, at the sentencing, the defendant made an application to withdraw his plea, contending that he had entered the plea involuntarily, given the circumstances and his lack of access to his counsel. The Supreme Court denied the application without engaging in any inquiry of the defendant, other than to comment on the favorable plea offer secured by defense counsel.\

Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court was able to make an informed determination as to the question of the voluntary nature of the defendant’s plea without conducting such an inquiry. The record substantiates the defendant’s claim that his plea was effectively coerced by the ongoing violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and, thus, a genuine factual issue as to the voluntariness of the plea existed that could only be resolved after a hearing. Under these circumstances, the court should have conducted a hearing to explore the defendant’s allegations in order to make an informed determination … . People v Hollmond, 2019 NY Slip Op 02354, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

,

LAY WITNESSES PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO AS THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined two lay witnesses were properly allowed to give their opinion that the person depicted in a video was the defendant:

The court providently exercised its discretion in permitting two witnesses to give lay opinion testimony that defendant was the person depicted in photos from surveillance videotapes from areas in and around the building where the robbery occurred and at the shelter where defendant resided both several months prior to the robbery and at the time of the robbery. This testimony “served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the [videos] was indeed the defendant” … , because there was “some basis for concluding that the witness[es] [were] more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the [videos] than [was] the jury” … .

The People established that defendant’s appearance had changed since the crime in several significant respects. Furthermore, the witnesses, who were sufficiently familiar with defendant, were able to recognize defendant’s mannerisms and peculiar way of walking. In addition, the record establishes the poor quality of the photographic evidence. People v Rivera, 2019 NY Slip Op 02262 [170 AD3d 566], First Dept 3-26-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS 17 WHEN HE COMMITTED THE CRIMES AND WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER IN 1992, THAT CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED AND DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER IN 2016, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, HE WAS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER HE SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department remitted the matter for consideration whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. The original murder conviction was in 1992. Defendant was granted a new trial and pled guilty to manslaughter in 2016. The youthful offender issue survives a waiver of appeal:

Defendant was 17 years old at the time he committed the underlying crimes and, based on the record before us, he appears to be an eligible youth within the meaning of CPL 720.10 (2). Defendant was sentenced, however, without the benefit of an updated presentence report. The court obtained from defendant a waiver of an updated report, which is generally permissible where, as here, the “defendant had been continually incarcerated between the time of the initial sentencing and resentencing and at the time of . . . resentencing [the defendant] was afforded the opportunity to supply information about his [or her] subsequent conduct” … . Nonetheless, “[w]hen determining whether a defendant is an eligible youth, the defendant’s status at the time of the conviction—in this case at the time of his plea of guilty—is controlling” … . The original presentence report prepared in 1992 on which the court relied is insufficient to establish that defendant was an eligible youth at the time he pled guilty to the manslaughter counts in 2016. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to make and state for the record a determination whether defendant is an eligible youth within the meaning of CPL 720.10 (2) with the benefit of an updated presentence report and, if so, whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. People v Jarvis, 2019 NY Slip Op 02206, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

,

SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY SUPPRESSED, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined that the showup indentification testimony should have been suppressed. The showup took place 90 minutes after the occurrence of the crime, in a hospital parking lot, where defendant was handcuffed and flanked by officers. The victim had already identified the defendant in a hospital-room showup procedure:

We conclude that, “[g]iven the identification made by the victim” during the first showup, the noncomplainant witness’s identification conducted far from the scene of the crime “is not rendered tolerable in the interest of prompt identification” … . The identification was also unjustified insofar as the noncomplainant witness was not present at the hospital as a victim … . The People have proffered no reason that a lineup identification procedure would have been unduly burdensome under the circumstances … . Absent any exigency or spatial proximity to the crime scene, and given that the showup occurred “approximately 90 minutes after the occurrence of the crime, while defendant was handcuffed and” flanked by police, we conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, the second “showup identification procedure was infirm” … . …

Inasmuch as the witness who identified defendant in the second showup procedure did not testify at the Wade hearing, “the People did not establish that [he] had an independent basis for [his] in-court identification of defendant” … , and “there is no evidence upon which this Court can base such a determination” … . We therefore conclude that defendant is entitled to a new Wade hearing on that issue … . People v Knox, 2019 NY Slip Op 02230, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

,

POLICE ENTERED HOME ILLEGALLY AND OBTAINED CONSENT TO SEARCH BY MISLEADING THE OCCUPANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming Supreme Court’s suppression of a weapon found in a home, determined the police illegally entered the home and gained consent to search by misleading the woman in the home:

Asked by defense counsel why he entered the home, the officer testified, “An individual who’s known to carry guns entered that house running into that house actually, coming out acting nervous, there’s a baby crying in the house, who is taking care of the baby?” …

… [T]he People correctly concede that the officer entered the home illegally. An illegal entry by the police requires the suppression of the fruits of an ensuing search notwithstanding a voluntary consent, unless the consent attenuates the taint of the illegal entry … . In determining whether the illegal entry is so attenuated, a court is required to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the temporal proximity of the consent to the illegal entry; (2) whether there were intervening circumstances; (3) whether the purpose underlying the illegal entry was to obtain the consent or the fruits of the search; (4) whether the consent was volunteered or requested; (5) whether the person who gave consent was aware that he or she could refuse consent; and, most importantly, (6) the purpose and flagrancy of the misconduct … .

… The purpose of the illegal entry was to recover a gun that the officer presumed was hidden inside. Any consent obtained thereafter was not volunteered. It was requested, and the woman was not advised that she could refuse consent. … Most importantly, the officer engaged in flagrant misconduct. Without having witnessed any illegality, the officer entered a private residence without permission, after midnight, while a woman in that residence was trying to feed her newborn child, and coerced her into consenting to a search of her home. People v Sweat, 2019 NY Slip Op 02240, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PRESENT EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AT THE DARDEN HEARING THAT THE INFORMANT EXISTED, THEREFORE THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence submitted by the People at the Darden hearing did not establish the existence of an informant with extrinsic evidence. Therefore the motion to suppress was granted and the indictment dismissed. The People presented only a death certificate purporting to demonstrate the informant was dead. No extrinsic evidence of the existence of the informant was presented:

The People must produce a confidential informant for an ex parte hearing upon defendant’s request where, as here, they rely on the statements of the confidential informant to establish probable cause (… People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177, 181 [1974] … ). …

There are, however, exceptions to the requirement that the People produce a confidential informant for a Darden hearing. If the People succeed in making a threshold showing that the informant “is unavailable and cannot be produced through the exercise of due diligence” … , they are permitted instead to establish the existence of the informant by extrinsic evidence … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that the People succeeded here in making such a threshold showing, we conclude that they nevertheless failed to establish the existence of the informant by extrinsic evidence … . The evidence establishes only that a deposition was executed in the name of the alleged confidential informant, that the police obtained a search warrant using the deposition, and that a death certificate was later issued for a person having the same name as the confidential informant. There is no evidence that the alleged informant actually made the statements attributed to her … . The People could have met their burden by offering the testimony of a police witness, which is evidence that is explicitly contemplated in Darden. Yet, they did not. Without it, there is nothing to refute the possibility that the police fabricated the statements in the informant’s purported deposition in order to conceal the fact that information critical to the probable cause inquiry was instead obtained through illegal police action. People v Givans, 2019 NY Slip Op 02220, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

,

HEARING NECESSARY ON THAT ASPECT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WHICH ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DEFENDANT ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JURY DEFENDANT WOULD TESTIFY WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING WITH DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on that aspect of his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. Defendant alleged defense counsel told the jury that defendant would testify without first consulting with defendant:

We … conclude … that defendant is entitled to a hearing with respect to whether counsel was ineffective in telling the jury that defendant would testify at trial. In support of his motion, defendant submitted his own affidavit stating that his trial counsel never discussed with him whether testifying would be a good or bad idea, and that he never told counsel that he would testify at trial, and that trial counsel nevertheless told the jury that defendant would testify. Defendant’s account is supported by the affirmation of defendant’s appellate counsel, who stated that trial counsel admitted that defendant did not tell him before trial that he would testify. Thus, defendant’s allegations are potentially supported by other evidence, and “it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that [they are] true” … . We therefore conclude that a hearing is required to afford defendant an opportunity to prove that trial counsel did not discuss with him whether he would testify before informing the jury that defendant would do so, and that there was no strategic or tactical explanation for telling the jury that defendant would testify … . People v Pendergraph, 2019 NY Slip Op 02212, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

TRAFFIC STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION DESPITE THE DMV COMPUTER IMPOUNDMENT RECORD’S CAUTIONARY STATEMENT THAT THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED STOLEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion even though the DMV impoundment record indicated the vehicle was not stolen:

Here, a New York State Trooper properly stopped the vehicle defendant was driving based on his check of Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) computer records for the vehicle’s license plate number, which revealed that the car had been impounded and thus should have been located in an impound lot … . …

Our dissenting colleagues conclude that the Trooper did not have reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle because the Trooper disregarded cautionary language in the DMV impoundment record stating that it “should not be treated as a stolen vehicle hit[, and] [n]o further action should be taken based solely upon this impounded response.” We conclude, however, that the Trooper’s testimony that the cautionary language was “generic,” inasmuch as it even “comes up with stolen vehicles,” and that, based on his experience, he interpreted the impoundment record as requiring him to conduct a further investigation because the vehicle “should not be out on the road,” establishes that the stop was not unreasonable. Rather, we conclude that the impoundment record, coupled with the Trooper’s explanation of its import, provided reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. In disregarding the Trooper’s explanation that the cautionary language was “generic,” the dissent would obligate us to find unreasonable any stops where that same message appears, irrespective of the facts surrounding the stop. We reject such a categorical determination. People v Hinshaw, 2019 NY Slip Op 02252, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

,

PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION CAN NOT BE IMPOSED ON AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE, ILLEGAL SENTENCE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY EITHER PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the period of postrelease supervision was not authorized for the indeterminate sentence imposed on the tampering with physical evidence conviction:

Supreme Court imposed a period of postrelease supervision in connection with defendant’s conviction of tampering with physical evidence. That was error inasmuch as a period of postrelease supervision is not authorized in connection with an indeterminate sentence (see Penal Law § 70.45 [1] … ). Although the issue is not raised by either party, we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating that period of postrelease supervision … . People v Harvey, 2019 NY Slip Op 02250, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

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