You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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

 

,

DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny defendant youthful offender status:

The evidence demonstrated that the defendant, who was only 18 years old when he participated in the subject robbery and had spent nearly two years in pretrial detention prior to pleading guilty to robbery in the first degree, played a relatively minor role in the robbery, which, although serious, was orchestrated by his considerably older brother, who was a repeat offender. The defendant suffers from developmental delays. While the defendant did participate in the robbery, it was the defendant’s brother, not the defendant, who wielded a gun and committed a sexual assault against one of the victims. Additional mitigating circumstances include the defendant’s lack of a prior juvenile record, criminal record, or violent history, and his cooperation with the authorities as part of the plea deal. Moreover, the defendant either had graduated from high school or was on the cusp of graduating from high school. Under all the circumstances, the interest of justice would be served by “relieving the defendant from the onus of a criminal record” … . People v Sheldon O., 2019 NY Slip Op 01430, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

PROSECUTION’S REVERSE-BATSON CHALLENGE TO PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES BY THE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the prosecution’s reverse-Batson challenge to defense peremptory juror challenges should not have been granted:

“[A]lthough appellate courts accord great deference to trial judges’ step three determinations, . . . there is no record support for Supreme Court’s rejection of defense counsel’s race-neutral reasons for striking [two panelists]. The People simply failed to meet their burden that racial discrimination was the motivating factor” … . Defense counsel presented facially race-neutral reasons for challenging the panelists at issue based on their having been crime victims or relatives of crime victims … , and there was no evidence of disparate treatment by defense counsel of similarly situated panelists … . The record otherwise fails to support the court’s finding that the race-neutral reasons given for these challenges were pretextual. People v Bloise, 2019 NY Slip Op 01363, First Dept 2-26-19

 

,

PHOTOGRAPH OF DEFENDANT WITH A WEAPON PROPERLY ADMITTED DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THE DEPICTED WEAPON WAS USED IN THE CHARGED OFFENSE, JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF AN ALLEGATION OF ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY IN THE INDICTMENT AND DESPITE THE PEOPLE’S THEORY THAT DEFENDANT WAS THE SHOOTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined a photograph depicting defendant with a weapon was properly admitted into evidence despite the absence of evidence that the weapon in the photograph was the weapon used in the offense. The trial court properly instructed the jury on accessorial liability despite the absence of an allegation of accessorial liability in the indictment and the People’s theory that defendant shot the victim:

The court providently exercised its discretion in admitting in evidence a photograph, taken less than two months before the shooting, showing a person, sufficiently established to be defendant, holding a revolver of the type used in the crime. This evidence was relevant to show that defendant had access to such a weapon, thus tending to establish his identity as the perpetrator, and there was no requirement of proof that the revolver in the photograph was the actual weapon used in the crime … . …

The court properly instructed the jury on accessorial liability, notwithstanding that no such language appeared in the indictment and the People’s main theory was that defendant personally shot the victim. There was no improper amendment of the indictment, because an indictment charging a defendant as a principal is “not unlawfully amended by the admission of proof and instruction to the jury that a defendant is additionally charged with acting-in-concert to commit the same crime, nor does it impermissibly broaden a defendant’s basis of liability, as there is no legal distinction between liability as a principal or criminal culpability as an accomplice” … . A theory that defendant intentionally aided a particular other person, who did the actual shooting, was supported by defendant’s own testimony. Although defendant claimed he had not shared the gunman’s intent, such intent could be inferred from the totality of the evidence. We reject defendant’s claim of unfair surprise, particularly because the theory of accessorial liability arose from defendant’s own testimony … . People v Alexander, 2019 NY Slip Op 01341, First Dept 2-26-19

 

, ,

MOTION TO PURGE THE CONTEMPT ORDER REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF SOLID WASTE THAT HAD BEEN DUMPED ON A FIELD BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE INCARCERATED DEFENDANT SHOULD BE RELEASED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to purge the contempt order should have been granted and one of the defendants, Cascino, who had been incarcerated for more than a year to force compliance with the underlying order, should be released. The court had ordered defendants to remove solid waste that had been dumped by then on a field. Much of the material had been removed but questions of fact remained whether all of it had been removed:

… [A] question of fact remains as to whether defendants completed the required remediation. This impasse brings us back to the fundamental problem that the disputed material looks like regular topsoil to the human eye. Despite ongoing removal efforts and Supreme Court having concluded multiple hearings throughout 2016 and 2017 as to the remediation performed, the difficulty of identifying the precise location of any remaining material has left the parties at a continuing impasse.

Given these circumstances, we conclude that to continue Cascino’s incarceration any further would serve no viable purpose and cannot be sustained. We are satisfied that the record establishes a significant effort on defendants’ part to purge the contempt, while recognizing that there remains some dispute as to whether all the disputed material has been removed. That said, until such time as a definitive showing has been made that the disputed material actually remains and precisely where, it would be improvident to continue Cascino’s incarceration. For these reasons, we conclude that the order must be reversed and defendants’ motion to purge the contempt granted. Town of Copake v 13 Lackawanna Props., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01271, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

,

MONITORING AND RECORDING PHONE CALLS MADE BY PRETRIAL DETAINEES WHO ARE NOTIFIED THE CALLS ARE MONITORED AND RECORDED DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE RECORDINGS MAY BE SHARED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTORS WITHOUT A WARRANT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over a two-judge dissent, determined recording phone conversation of pretrial detainees who are notified the calls are monitored and recorded does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Therefore such recordings can be shared with law enforcement and prosecutors:

… [W]here detainees are aware that their phone calls are being monitored and recorded, all reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of those phone calls is lost, “and there is no legitimate reason to think that the recordings, like any other evidence lawfully discovered, would not be admissible” … . Moreover, the signs posted near the telephones used by the inmates state that calls are monitored in “accordance with DOC policy” which, according to the DOC Operations Order, provides that while recordings are confidential and not available to the public, the District Attorney’s Office may request a copy of an inmate’s recorded calls which will be provided upon approval by DOC … . …

We therefore reject defendant’s argument that he retained a reasonable expectation of privacy once the calls were lawfully intercepted by DOC and hold that there were no additional Fourth Amendment protections that would prevent DOC from releasing the recording to the District Attorney’s Office absent a warrant. People v Diaz, 2019 NY Slip Op 01260, CtApp 2-19-19

 

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