You are here: / Criminal Law
,

CONFLICTING PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATIONS REQUIRED A COMPETENCY HEARING, EVEN IF ONE OF THE PSYCHIATRISTS HAD CHANGED HIS OR HER MIND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined a hearing was required to assess defendant’s competency to stand trial because conflicting reports from the two psychiatric evaluations. The fact that one of the psychiatrists apparently changed his or her opinion was deemed irrelevant. The matter was sent back for a reconstruction hearing:

… [T]here can be no dispute that, after receiving conflicting examination reports, County Court failed to conduct a competency hearing. Although the People rely on defense counsel’s representation that the psychiatric examiner who filed a report stating that defendant was not competent to stand trial had changed his mind, this representation and subsequent withdrawal of the request for a hearing did not relieve the court of its statutory duty to conduct a hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30 (4) for the purpose of determining defendant’s mental capacity to stand trial … . We agree with the dissent that, pursuant to CPL 730.30 (2), a competency hearing need not always be held “[w]hen the examination reports submitted to the court show that each psychiatric examiner is of the opinion that the defendant is not an incapacitated person” (emphasis added). However, we do not agree that CPL 730.30 (2) applies when the record demonstrates that the court has been provided with two conflicting examination reports, even if the defendant’s attorney represents that one of the examiners has since changed his or her opinion.

Given the circumstances present here, reconstruction of defendant’s mental capacity at the time of his violation hearing should be possible by means of “contemporaneous observation and records” … . People v Vandegrift, 2019 NY Slip Op 01854, Third Dept 3-14-19

 

,

RECORDED JAIL PHONE CALLS MAY NOT HAVE RELATED TO THE OFFENSE WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE TRIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined recordings of jail phone calls made by the defendant should not have been admitted in this criminal possession of a weapon case. It was possible the recordings related to a subsequent weapons charge, not the charge before the jury:

… [T]he timing and content of the telephone calls made it highly unlikely that the defendant was referencing his September 2014 arrest for the instant offense, rather than his subsequent arrest on the unrelated gun possession charge. Moreover, in addition to the lack of relevance of this evidence to the charges in this case, the jury was unaware of the defendant’s subsequent May 2015 arrest, and therefore was unable to properly evaluate the weight to be accorded to the recordings as evidence of the defendant’s guilt of the instant offense. Thus, there was a substantial risk that the jury would be misled into believing that the defendant’s admissions in the telephone recordings referred to the instant offense. The admission of the recordings into evidence placed the defendant in the untenable position of deciding whether to accept this misleading narrative that the telephone recordings referred to the instant offense or disclose his later arrest on a similar gun possession charge, which disclosure itself would have caused him undue prejudice … . People v Robinson, 2019 NY Slip Op 01799, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

, , ,

EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S STEPFATHER APOLOGIZED TO THE ROBBERY VICTIM FOR THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS AND THE TESTIMONY ABOUT AN ANONYMOUS INFORMANT’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE ENCOURAGED INFERENCE OF GUILT BASED ON FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, APPELLATE ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, reaching the appellate issues in the interest of justice, determined that improperly admitted evidence warranted a new trial, noting that the prosecutor also acted improperly. The identity of the defendant was a key issue in this robbery case. The victim (Fernandez) should not have been allowed to testify that the defendant’s stepfather told the victim he was sorry for what defendant had done and returned the victim’s keys. Also, the investigating detective should not have been allowed to testify that an anonymous informant had identified the defendant:

There was no showing that the defendant participated in or was in any way connected to his stepfather’s actions … .

… [T]he testimony of an investigating detective recounting a conversation with an anonymous informant, a nontestifying witness, violated the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution… . The informant reportedly was an eyewitness to the crime and identified the defendant by name. The testimony “went beyond the permissible bounds of provid[ing] background information as to how and why the police pursued [the] defendant” … . …

Upon retrial, we remind the People that, on summation, a prosecutor may not “improperly encourage[ ] inferences of guilt based on facts not in evidence” … . Here, there was no evidence to support the prosecutor’s assertion that Fernandez had identified the defendant as the robber “immediately” by recognizing a distinctive “dot” on the defendant’s face. People v Gonsalves, 2019 NY Slip Op 01792, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT WHEN APPROACHED BY POLICE IN PLAINCLOTHES AND DRIVING AN UNMARKED CAR DID NOT JUSTIFY PURSUIT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WEAPON DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over two separate full-fledged dissenting opinions, determined that the police did not have justification for pursuing defendant when he ran as the police (in plainclothes driving an unmarked car) approached. The police had a report of a shooting by a black man wearing a black jacket. Defendant was wearing a gray jacket and was walking out of an apartment complex with a black man wearing a black jacket. Defendant’s motion to suppress the weapon he discarded during the chase should have been granted:

“Flight alone, even if accompanied by equivocal circumstances that would justify a police request for information, does not establish reasonable suspicion of criminality and is insufficient to justify pursuit, although it may give rise to reasonable suspicion if combined with other specific circumstances indicating the suspect’s possible engagement in criminal activity” … . “Police pursuit of an individual ‘significantly impede[s]’ the person’s freedom of movement and thus must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” … . …

… [T]he radio report simply indicated a sole perpetrator with a vague description — black man in a black jacket. There was nothing at all about defendant that matched any aspect of the suspect in the radio report, except that he was black. Nor was defendant wearing a black jacket. He was wearing a gray jacket and was with a second individual, several minutes after the radio report of shots fired. The men did not appear to be fleeing the scene, but rather, were exiting an apartment complex. Thus, unlike the cases relied on by the People, defendant did not match any description, general or otherwise … . Further, there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that defendant knew Pengel and his colleagues were police officers… .

That defendant was with someone who matched an extremely vague, generic description of the suspect, which contained no information about the suspect’s height or weight, was not sufficiently indicative of criminal activity on defendant’s part … . People v Bilal, 2019 NY Slip Op 01673, First Dept 3-7-19

 

​

,

POLICE OFFICER’S ALLEGED OBSERVATION OF A DRUG DEAL WAS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence should have been granted and the indictment dismissed in this drug possession case. The police officer’s (Borden’s) testimony that he observed the drug transaction, which took place inside a car, through his rearview mirror, was incredible as a matter of law:

… [W]e find that the People failed to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, as Borden’s testimony was incredible and patently tailored to meet constitutional objections. Borden’s claim that he observed the alleged transaction through his rearview mirror with sufficient clarity to see that the object passed between the occupants of the car was Suboxone strains credulity and defies common sense … . Rather, common experience dictates that the dashboard of the defendant’s vehicle would have obscured Borden’s view of a hand-to-hand transaction between the defendant and the front-seat passenger. Borden’s testimony that the transaction occurred at a height sufficient for “public view” lacked credibility and suggested that his testimony was tailored to meet constitutional objections … . Moreover, the difference in size between the eight-inch by two-inch object Borden claimed to have seen passed between the occupants of the vehicle, and the two-inch by one-inch object recovered … , casts significant doubt on Borden’s testimony that he recognized the object as Suboxone. Accordingly, exercising our independent power of factual review, we conclude that the defendant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence recovered incident to his arrest should have been granted. People v Maiwandi, 2019 NY Slip Op 01618, Second Dept 3-6-19

 

,

PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE RAPE KIT AND BLOOD AND SALIVA EVIDENCE RELATED TO A 1988 PROSECUTION HAD BEEN DESTROYED AND DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE VERDICT, MOTION FOR DNA TESTING AND MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for DNA testing and his motion to vacate his conviction were properly denied. Defendant had been convicted of sodomy in 1988. After a successful habeas corpus petition, a second trial was held and defendant was again convicted. After the habeas corpus petition had been filed, but before it was docketed, the NYPD destroyed the rape kit and blood and saliva samples. No DNA testing had been done on the evidence:

Any defendant, regardless of the date of conviction, may move for DNA testing on specified evidence. The court shall grant the application if it determines that had a DNA test been conducted on the evidence and had the results of that evidence been admitted at trial, “there exists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.30[1-a][a][1]). Defendant bears the burden of making the “reasonable probability” showing … . Where the People assert that the evidence to be tested has been destroyed or cannot be located, the statute provides that the people must make “a representation to that effect” and submit “information and documentary evidence in the possession of the people concerning the last known physical location of such specified evidence” (CPL 440.30[1-b][b]). It is the People’s burden to show that the evidence could no longer be located and was thus no longer available for testing … .

We find that the People met their burden. …

… .[W]e find that defendant has not carried his burden of establishing that, even had he been able to secure the original evidence and perform DNA testing on it, there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different … . People v Dorsey, 2019 NY Slip Op 01526, First Dept 3-5-19

 

, ,

WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION OF AN ISSUE WHICH AROSE AFTER THE WAIVER, AT SENTENCING ALL WERE UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION DEFENDANT WAS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, SENTENCING JUDGE HAD SINCE BECOME THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE COULD NOT, THEREFORE, REPRESENT DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s waiver of appeal did not preclude consideration of an issue that came up after the waiver and the public defender’s office could not represent defendant because the sentencing judge had since become the public defender. At sentencing and at the time of the waiver of appeal, all were under the misconception defendant was a second felony offender:

… [D]efendant’s waiver of the right to appeal regarding his plea to the probation violation was entered under the misconception by all parties that defendant was a second felony drug offender. Accordingly, the waiver does not preclude our review of defendant’s appeal on resentencing because “the plea was entered pursuant to conditions that changed after defendant’s waiver” … . We agree with defendant’s argument on appeal that the Albany County Public Defender’s office was precluded, as a matter of law, from representing him at the resentencing hearing because the Public Defender, prior to being appointed to that position, was the County Judge who presided over and initially sentenced him in this matter (see Judiciary Law § 17 … ). Accordingly, the judgment resentencing defendant must be reversed and the matter remitted for resentencing, with different representation assigned to defendant. People v Sumter, 2019 NY Slip Op 01460, Third Dept 2-28-19

 

,

THE EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE IN THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISION WHICH CRIMINALIZES POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION IS AN EXCEPTION THAT MUST BE AFFIRMATIVELY PLED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of unlawful possession of ammunition pursuant to New York City Administrative Code § 10-131(i)(3), determined that the exclusionary language in the code provision is an exception which must be affirmatively pled in the accusatory instrument:

We find that the relevant language in section 10-131(i)(3), which makes it a crime to possess pistol or revolver ammunition unless authorized to possess a pistol or revolver, constitutes an exception and not a proviso. Consequently, it was the People’s burden to prove that the defendant was not authorized to possess a pistol or revolver within the City of New York. As the People failed to do so, defendant’s conviction under section 10-131(i)(3) must be vacated and that count dismissed.

In order to determine whether a statute defining a crime contains “an exception that must be affirmatively pleaded as an element in the accusatory instrument” or “a proviso that need not be pleaded but may be raised by the accused as a bar to prosecution or a defense at trial,” one must look to the language of the statute itself … . Indeed, “[i]f the defining statute contains an exception, the indictment must allege that the crime is not within the exception. But when the exception is found outside the statute,” it is termed a proviso and “generally is a matter for the defendant to raise in defense” … . “Legislative intent to create an exception [whose existence must be negated by the prosecution] has generally been found when the language of exclusion is contained entirely within” the statute itself … . In contrast, where the language of the exclusion depends on a source outside the statute, courts will infer that the language functions as a proviso … . People v Tatis, 2019 NY Slip Op 01507, First Dept 2-28-19

 

,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO PERMISSIVE ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION BASED UPON THE PEOPLE’S LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the permissive adverse inference jury instruction should have been given because of the loss or destruction of evidence requested by the defendant:

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court should have granted his request for a permissive adverse inference charge with respect to the People’s failure to turn over duly requested tape recordings and any other police records related to taped interactions between the undercover officer and a witness to the March 4, 1998, sale, who was also the defendant’s unindicted co-defendant. ” A permissive adverse inference instruction typically serves as either: (1) a penalty for the government’s violation of its statutory and constitutional duties or its destruction of material evidence; or (2) an explanation of logical inferences that may be drawn regarding the government’s motives for failing to present certain evidence at trial'” …

We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court should have granted his request for a permissive adverse inference charge based upon the People’s loss or destruction of the material requested by the defendant … . “[A] permissive adverse inference charge should be given where a defendant, using reasonable diligence, has requested evidence reasonably likely to be material, and where that evidence has been destroyed by agents of the State”… . Although the prosecutor stated that the missing tapes were unrelated to the sales at issue and were not recorded on the dates of the buys, he concededly never listened to them. Additionally, the officer who relayed the information that the tapes were not recorded on the dates of the buys to the prosecutor did not testify at trial. People v Torres, 2019 NY Slip Op 01434, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

TRIAL COURT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT FINDING DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE LESSER COUNTS, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, noted that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that finding the defendant not guilty of the top count (attempted murder) based upon the justification defense would preclude consideration of the lesser counts. Defendant was acquitted of attempted murder but found guilty of assault first:

… [T]he Supreme Court’s jury charge in conjunction with the verdict sheet failed to adequately convey to the jury that if it found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder in the second degree based on justification, then “it should simply render a verdict of acquittal and cease deliberation, without regard to” assault in the first degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree … . Thus, the court’s instructions, together with the verdict sheet, may have led the jurors to conclude that deliberation on each of the three counts required reconsideration of the justification defense, even if they had already acquitted the defendant of attempted murder in the second degree based on justification … . Since we cannot say with any certainty and there is no way of knowing whether the acquittal on attempted murder in the second degree was based on a finding of justification, a new trial is necessary… . In light of the defendant’s acquittal on the charge of attempted murder in the second degree, the highest offense for which the defendant may be retried is assault in the first degree … . People v Rosario, 2019 NY Slip Op 01432, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

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