You are here: / Criminal Law
,

BECAUSE THE COURT DID NOT IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE PLEAS AND SENTENCING COMMITMENTS, THE SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED BASED ON THE PURPORTED VIOLATIONS OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SENTENCING, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPELLATE COURT CONSIDERED IT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the sentencing court should not have imposed an enhanced sentence (consecutive instead of concurrent) because defendant did not appear at sentencing because the court had not imposed his appearance as a condition for the pleas and sentencing commitments. Although the issue was not preserved, the court considered the appeal in the interest of justice:

The defendant entered pleas of guilty under three separate indictments. He was promised that the sentences imposed would run concurrently. The defendant did not appear in court on the scheduled sentencing date. Subsequently, in rendering the judgments of conviction, the Supreme Court directed, inter alia, the sentence imposed on the second judgment to run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the first judgment.  …

… [W]e exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to vacate the sentences. Since the record does not establish that the Supreme Court imposed as a condition on the pleas and sentencing commitments that the defendant return on the scheduled sentencing date, the court should not have imposed enhanced sentences based on the defendant’s violation of this purported condition … . To the extent that the court also based its imposition of enhanced sentences on the defendant having violated certain other purported conditions, it likewise erred, since it had not imposed these conditions on the pleas and sentencing commitments. People v Andre, 2019 NY Slip Op 00136, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

COURT NEVER RULED ON WHETHER THE PROSECUTOR’S INITIAL REASON FOR EXCLUDING AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN POTENTIAL JUROR WAS A CREDIBLE RACE-NEUTRAL REASON, THE REASONS OFFERED AFTER THE JUROR WAS QUESTIONED FURTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial court did not handle the Batson challenge to the prosecutor’s striking an African American juror correctly. When asked about her reasons, the prosecutor said the potential juror was too young to sit on a murder trial. Upon further questioning the potential juror had difficulty understanding and answering questions. But the court never ruled whether the prosecutor’s initial reason for excluding the potential juror, his youth, was a credible race-neutral explanation:

New York courts apply the three-step test of Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79) to determine whether a party has used peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors for an impermissible discriminatory reason… . “The first step requires that the moving party make a prima facie showing of discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges; the second step shifts the burden to the nonmoving party to provide race-neutral reasons for each juror being challenged; and the third step requires the court to make a factual determination as to whether the race-neutral reasons are merely a pretext for discrimination” … .

… [T]he Supreme Court failed in its duty to determine whether the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations were credible (see … United States v Taylor, 636 F3d 901, 905 [7th Cir] [“when ruling on a Batson challenge, the trial court should consider only the reasons initially given to support the challenged strike, not additional reasons offered after the fact”]). People v Alexander, 2019 NY Slip Op 00135, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, ,

ALLOCUTION CAST DOUBT ABOUT GUILT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the plea allocution was defective in this juvenile delinquency proceeding. The allocution did not support the elements of the charged offense (grand larceny fourth degree if committed by an adult) and the juvenile’s foster care planner was not questioned about the offense, a defect which cannot be waived. Although no motion to withdraw was made, the allocution cast significant doubt about guilt which constitutes an exception to the the preservation requirement for appeal:

The appellant did not move to withdraw his admission on the grounds raised on appeal … . However, this is one of the ” rare case[s] . . . where the [appellant’s] recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the [appellant’s] guilt,’ [which] fall[s] into the narrow exception to the preservation requirement”… . In addition, the appellant was not required to preserve his contention that the Family Court erred in failing to obtain an allocution from the foster care case planner, since the statutory requirement of such an allocution may not be waived … . * * *

The Family Court did not elicit any additional details concerning the incident in order to clarify how the appellant came to be in possession of the $5 such that it could be concluded that he took it from the boy’s person within the meaning of Penal Law § 155.30(5). Thus, the court “did not elicit a sufficient factual basis to support [the appellant’s] admission'” … .

In addition, the appellant’s admission was defective since his foster care case planner was present, but the Family Court failed to ascertain through allocution of the foster care case planner, as a person legally responsible for the appellant’s care, “that (a) [the appellant] committed the act or acts to which he [was] entering an admission, (b) he [was] voluntarily waiving his right to a fact-finding hearing, and (c) he [was] aware of the possible specific dispositional orders” … . Matter of Richard S., 2019 NY Slip Op 00130, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF 37 COUNTS OF SEXUAL OFFENSES, THE TESTIMONY AT TRIAL RENDERED 26 COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that 26 of the 37 sexual offense counts on which defendant was convicted must be reversed because they were rendered duplicitous by the trial testimony:

An indictment count is duplicitous when it charges more than one crime that is completed by a discrete act in the same count … . “Even if a count is valid on its face, it is nonetheless duplicitous where the evidence presented to the grand jury or at trial ‘makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict'” … . Thus, when “the trial testimony provides evidence of repeated acts that cannot be individually related to specific counts in the indictment, the prohibition against duplicitousness has been violated”  … . …

For example, counts 1 and 2 of the indictment used identical language to charge defendant with predatory sexual assault against a child on the ground that he committed the crime of criminal sexual assault in the first degree against victim 1 during the summer of 2006 … . Victim 1 testified that, during the summer of 2006 when he was 12 years old, defendant put his mouth on victim 1’s penis “[a]t least two times.” Likewise, counts 5 and 6 charged defendant with criminal sexual act in the second degree consisting of oral sexual conduct with victim 1 during the summer of 2007, counts 7 and 8 charged defendant with the commission of the same crime during the summer of 2008, counts 9 through 12 charged defendant with the commission of two counts of criminal sexual act in the third degree in each of the summers of 2009 and 2010, and count 13 charged defendant with the commission of sexual abuse in the second degree during the summer of 2006. Victim 1 testified that the charged conduct occurred at least twice during each of the specified time periods. He provided no further specifics about the frequency or timing of any particular act, and the prosecutor did not seek to distinguish among them by, for example, drawing victim 1’s attention to the first incident in one of the specified time periods and then asking him to describe that particular event … .  Likewise, the jury was given no instructions that distinguished between the counts pertaining to any of the time periods in a way that would have permitted it to relate each of the counts to a specific act … . People v Madsen, 2019 NY Slip Op 00003, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S RELEASE ON PAROLE WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD OF PAROLE AND UPHELD THE DENIAL OF PAROLE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED COMMUNITY OPPOSITION IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STATUTORY FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that petitioner’s request to be released on parole was properly denied. The majority held that community opposition to release is a factor to be considered. The dissenters argued that community opposition is not included in the statutory factors to be considered:

By statutorily protecting the confidentiality of those members of the community — in addition to the crime victim or victim’s representative — who choose to express their opinion, either for or against, an inmate’s bid to obtain parole release, the Legislature demonstrated a clear intent that such opinions are a factor that may be considered by respondent in rendering its ultimate parole release decision. Significantly, such statements and opinions are germane to respondent’s determination as to whether an inmate will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, whether such release is compatible with the welfare of society and whether an inmate’s release will deprecate the seriousness of the underlying crime as to undermine respect for the law — statutory factors that respondent must consider in rendering its parole release determinations (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A] …).

From the Dissent: Respondent based its denial of petitioner’s parole, in part, on “consistent community opposition” — an element that is not among the factors that the Legislature directed respondent to consider in making parole release determinations (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]). Although the majority’s approach may have some practical appeal, we are bound by the governing law. It is well established that respondent may not rely upon factors outside the scope of Executive Law § 259-i in making decisions concerning parole release … . Matter of Applewhite v New York State Bd. of Parole, 2018 NY Slip Op 08989, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

,

CLAIMANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND AN UNRELATED ROBBERY WHICH WERE CHARGED IN A SINGLE INDICTMENT, AFTER A MAN CONFESSED TO THE MURDER, CLAIMANT’S MURDER CONVICTION WAS VACATED BUT THE ROBBERY CONVICTION REMAINED, REVERSING THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THE THIRD DEPT DETERMINED CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THE UNJUST MURDER CONVICTION AND RELATED IMPRISONMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined that claimant was entitled to compensation based upon his unjust conviction and imprisonment. Claimant’s murder conviction was vacated after another man confessed to the murder. Claimant had been charged with an unrelated robbery and the murder and robbery charges were joined in a single indictment. At the time the murder conviction was vacated, defendant pled guilty to the robbery. The state contended that the guilty plea to robbery precluded the claimant from compensation for the unjust murder conviction based upon the wording of the statute. The Third Department disagreed and interpreted the statute to allow compensation:

Court of Claims Act § 8-b allows individuals who are unjustly convicted and imprisoned to recover damages from defendant. To avoid dismissal of his claim, claimant was required to establish, as relevant here, that “he did not commit any of the acts charged in the accusatory instrument” … . Claimant admitted that he committed acts charged in the indictment when he pleaded guilty to first degree robbery; however, he argues that the term “accusatory instrument” must be construed as applying only to the murder charges because they arose from an event that had no connection to the robbery. * * *

The term “accusatory instrument” could be literally construed to refer to the single indictment that charged claimant with crimes that arose from both events — the robbery and the subsequent murder. However, that conclusion must be measured against the intent of the legislation plainly expressed in the statute, which states that “[t]he [L]egislature finds and declares that innocent persons who have been wrongly convicted of crimes and subsequently imprisoned have been frustrated in seeking legal redress due to a variety of substantive and technical obstacles in the law and that such persons should have an available avenue of redress over and above the existing tort remedies to seek compensation for damages. The [L]egislature intends by enactment of the provisions of this section that those innocent persons who can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that they were unjustly convicted and imprisoned be able to recover damages against [defendant]” … . Hence, “the linchpin of the statute is innocence” … . …

Under the unique facts of this case, a literal interpretation of “accusatory instrument” would lead to an unreasonable result starkly at odds with the clearly-expressed intent of the statute by denying recovery to claimant — who is indisputably innocent of the murder for which he was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned — solely because the charges arising from events now known to be unrelated were joined in a single indictment. Jones v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 08985, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS A GUN FOUND IN A VEHICLE, THE COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL, THE SECOND DEPT DID NOT THEREFORE HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW THE ISSUE, MATTER SENT BACK SO SUPREME COURT CAN ARTICULATE ITS REASONING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department remitted the matter to Supreme Court for the basis of its ruling on a suppression motion:

This Court is statutorily limited to reviewing errors or defects that “may have adversely affected the appellant” (CPL 470.15[1]), and thus has no power “to review issues either decided in an appellant’s favor, or not ruled upon, by the trial court”… . The Court of Appeals has observed that, once the Appellate Division has rejected a trial court’s ruling on a particular issue, it may not proceed to consider other issues that might provide a basis for affirmance if they were not determined adversely to the appellant… .

Here, the defendant contends that the Supreme Court incorrectly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun, arguing that the inevitable discovery and search incident to a lawful arrest exceptions did not apply. The People contend, as they did before the Supreme Court, that the automobile exception applies. However, the court did not set forth the basis for its denial of the branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the gun. Furthermore, on this record, we cannot determine the unarticulated predicate for the court’s evidentiary ruling …  Therefore, in order to avoid exceeding our statutory authority pursuant to CPL 470.15(1), we hold the appeal in abeyance and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun. People v Thomas, 2018 NY Slip Op 08962, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE REQUEST FOR A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION, THE COURT OF APPEALS CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION RULING IN PEOPLE V BOONE APPLIES RETROACTIVELY, HOWEVER THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined County Court should have given the cross-racial jury instruction, but deemed the error harmless:

The defendant correctly contends that the County Court erred in denying his request for a jury charge on cross-racial identification. In People v Boone (30 NY3d 521, 526), the Court of Appeals held that where, as here, “identification is an issue in a criminal case and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, upon request, a party is entitled to a charge on cross-racial identification.” Contrary to the People’s contention, Boone applies retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal … .

Nevertheless, the County Court’s failure to give a cross-racial identification charge constituted harmless error. At trial, the complainant identified the defendant as one of the three perpetrators who robbed him inside the office of the car wash. The evidence at trial established that shortly after the robbery, a police officer located the defendant and his accomplices, who matched the descriptions of the perpetrators, in a car. The defendant and his accomplices then led the police on a high-speed car chase and a subsequent chase on foot. When the defendant was apprehended following the foot chase, the police searched him for weapons, and the defendant stated, “they’re not on me, the guns are in the car.” The guns and proceeds of the robbery were found in the car from which the defendant and his accomplices fled. Additionally, money that the complainant had withdrawn from the bank earlier that day, which was bound with blue bands, was recovered from a jacket the defendant had discarded as he was running from the police. Under these circumstances, the error in failing to give the charge on cross-racial identification was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and no significant probability that the defendant would have been acquitted if not for the error … . People v Jordan, 2018 NY Slip Op 08956, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

, ,

DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY INDICATING DEFENDANT WAS IDENTIFIED IN A LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ALTHOUGH THIS WAS A ONE WITNESS IDENTIFICATION CASE, THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reviewing the unpreserved issue in the interest of justice, determined that the detective’s testimony indicated defendant had been identified in a lineup was inadmissible bolstering. The error was reviewed in the interest of justice. In light of the overwhelming evidence, however, the error was deemed harmless:

We conclude that the detective’s testimony that the defendant was arrested “[a]fter the lineup was conducted” could have led the jury to believe that the police were induced to take action as a result of the lineup identification, and therefore constituted improper implicit bolstering of the witness’s identification testimony … .

… “Harmless error analysis proceeds in two stages” … . First, “unless the proof of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming, there is no occasion for consideration of any doctrine of harmless error” … . Second, for a nonconstitutional error to be harmless the appellate court must conclude “that there is [no] significant probability . . . in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred”… .

In analyzing the effect of a bolstering error, the Court of Appeals has stated that “[t]he standard of harmlessness  … is whether the evidence of identity is so strong that there is no substantial issue on the point'”… . In the context of a case involving an identification by a single witness, the Court of Appeals has concluded that a bolstering error was harmless in light of, among other things, the “unusually credit-worthy” nature of the witness’s identification … .

Here, although the only direct evidence connecting the defendant to the commission of the crimes charged was the identification testimony of a single witness, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the error, was overwhelming … . People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 08954, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

, , ,

RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE MAY HAVE MISLED THE JURY TO CONCLUDE THEY COULD MAKE THEIR OWN LAY JUDGMENT, AS OPPOSED TO RELYING ON EXPERT OPINION, ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY IN THIS CIVIL MANAGEMENT PROCEEDING, ISSUE REVIEWED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, over a dissent, reversed the finding that defendant sex offender (Timothy R.) suffers from a mental abnormality and requires civil commitment and ordered a new trial. The jury sent out a note asking whether they must agree with the diagnosis of one of the experts to find defendant has a mental abnormality. The court, over defendant’s counsel’s objection, answered “no.” On appeal defendant argued that the jury was effectively told it could ignore the experts and come to their own judgment on the mental abnormality issue. Although that specific argument was not made below, and therefore was not preserved, the Second Department reviewed it in the interest of justice and held that the jury would have to agree with an expert’s diagnosis to find defendant suffered from a mental abnormality:

… [C]ontrary to the Supreme Court’s response to the jury note, in order to conclude that Timothy R. has a mental abnormality, the jury was required to accept expert testimony as to at least one diagnosis that meets the legal predicate for mental abnormality. When the court answered the note in the negative and reiterated to the jury the general instruction as to accepting or rejecting all or some of an expert’s testimony as it sees fit … , the jury could have been misled into relying solely upon its own lay opinion or so much of the expert testimony as relied upon nonpredicate diagnoses, without regard to the expert testimony, that Timothy R. has a congenital or acquired condition, disease, or disorder … . Matter of State of New York v Timothy R., 2018 NY Slip Op 08940, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

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