You are here: / Criminal Law
,

TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON ASSAULT THIRD AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the trial judge properly refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of assault third degree. The dissenters disagreed:

… [T]he court did not err in refusing to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [2]). Based on the number and sizes of the scars to her face, there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that the victim sustained only a physical injury as opposed to a serious physical injury … . People v Sipp, 2019 NY Slip Op 00771, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

,

WHETHER TO MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL IS A DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE’S ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO DECIDE VIOLATED THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, although finding the error harmless, determined that the trial judge should not have left the decision whether or not to move for a mistrial up to the defendant, as opposed to defense counsel. The basis for a potential mistrial was the medical examiner’s testimony that the drowning death of the victim was a “homicide:”

Defendant … contends in his pro se supplemental brief that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the court allowed him to decide, against the professional judgment of his counsel, not to request a mistrial as the remedy for the Medical Examiner’s improper testimony. We agree. “It is well established that a defendant, having accepted the assistance of counsel, retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions regarding the case’ such as whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal’ ” … . Defense counsel has ultimate decision-making authority over matters of trial strategy, including the decision whether to request a mistrial … . Here, defense counsel explained to the court that he recommended that defendant move for a mistrial, but that defendant instructed him not to do so. The court then addressed defendant directly and confirmed that defendant wished to proceed with trial. Thus, the court ” denied [defendant] the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him’ ” … . People v Szatanek, 2019 NY Slip Op 00794, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S TAKING A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defense counsel violated defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel by taking a position adverse to defendant’s pro se motion to vacate his guilty plea:

Defense counsel’s repeated assertions that there was no basis for defendant’s motion and that his plea had been entered knowingly and voluntarily created a conflict of interest between him and defendant, thereby giving rise to County Court’s obligation to assign new counsel before deciding the motion … . Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remit the matter for assignment of new counsel and reconsideration of defendant’s motion. People v Faulkner, 2019 NY Slip Op 00645, Third Dept 1-31-19

 

, ,

REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES WHICH LIMITED THE AVAILABILITY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE EARLY STAGES OF A CLAIM CONFLICT WITH THE CONTROLLING STATUTE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that certain changes made by the Office of Victim Services (OVS) to regulations affecting the availability of attorney’s fees in early stages of a claim conflicted with the controlling statute:

Executive Law § 626 (1) requires OVS to reimburse crime victims for out-of-pocket loss, which “shall . . . include . . . the cost of reasonable attorneys’ fees for representation before [OVS] and/or before the [A]ppellate [D]ivision upon judicial review” … . Our primary purpose in interpreting this provision “is to discern the will of the Legislature and, as the clearest indicator of legislative intent is the statutory text, the starting point in any case of interpretation must always be the language itself, giving effect to the plain meaning thereof” … . Applying these principles, we find no authorization in the statute’s plain language for OVS to conclude that counsel fees are never”reasonable” during the early stages of a claim and, thus, to categorically exclude awards of counsel fees for such representation in every instance. Neither this statutory language nor the similar language of Executive Law § 623 (3) — that authorizes OVS to promulgate regulations for the approval of counsel fees “for representation before [OVS] and/or before the [A]ppellate [D]ivision” — distinguishes among the stages of a victim’s representation before OVS, nor does the statutory text suggest that OVS may do so. Matter of Juarez v New York State Off. of Victim Servs., 2019 NY Slip Op 00653, Third Dept 1-31-19

 

,

EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT USED HIS FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WITNESS (DEFENDANT’S COUSIN) TO INDUCE THE WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT INTRODUCTION OF THE WITNESS’S PRIOR STATEMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the evidence presented at the Sirois hearing was sufficient to warrant the conclusion that a witness, defendant’s cousin, refused to testify because of the actions of the defendant. Therefore statements made by the defendant’s cousin were properly admitted at trial:

The People presented phone records evidencing the dates and the content of certain calls made by the cousin to other individuals while the cousin was incarcerated at Riker’s Island, and calls by the defendant to other individuals believed to be family members. The People contended these calls demonstrated that the defendant and other family members secured the cousin’s agreement not to testify against the defendant. The People also represented to the Supreme Court that they planned to offer the testimony of an inmate who knew the defendant and his family, who claimed, among other things, that the defendant had told him that the defendant had “put the wolves out” on the cousin to keep him from testifying, and that the defendant was confident that he would beat the charges as a result. According to the People, the inmate subsequently refused to testify at the hearing out of fear. An Assistant District Attorney testified at the hearing as to the substance of her interview of the inmate, which had taken place the day before. …

… [T]the People “demonstrate[d] by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant, by violence, threats or chicanery, caused [the] witness’s unavailability” … . Misconduct is not limited to threats or intimidation; it can also include situations where, as here, the People established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant used his close personal relationship with his cousin and/or threats to pressure him not to testify … . People v Walton, 2019 NY Slip Op 00623, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE DEFENDANT THE WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD HE GO TO TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY, EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined: (1) the plea was not voluntary because defendant was given the wrong information about the possible maximum sentence if he went to trial; and (2) the error is an exception to the preservation requirement for appeal because defendant could not have known of the error at the time of the plea:

The Court of Appeals … has carved out an exception to the preservation doctrine “because of the actual or practical unavailability of either a motion to withdraw the plea’ or a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction,'” in certain instances, reasoning that ” a defendant can hardly be expected to move to withdraw his plea on a ground of which he has no knowledge'” … . Moreover, the defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives his valid appeal waiver … . …

Here, the defendant’s plea was not made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The record demonstrates that the defendant was not presented with legitimate alternatives about the maximum sentence he faced in the event he chose to reject the People’s plea offer and was convicted after trial. … On this record, given the difference between the incorrect maximum aggregate sentence of 3 to 5 years that defense counsel communicated to the defendant, the actual maximum aggregate sentence of 2 to 4 years, and the bargained-for sentence of 1½ to 3 years, the threat of a higher sentence rendered the defendant’s plea involuntary … . People v Keller, 2019 NY Slip Op 00620, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

, , ,

UNWARNED STATEMENTS MADE DURING CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION AND STATEMENTS MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, SOME UNPRESERVED APPELLATE ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, reversed defendant’s bribery and falsely reporting an incident convictions, in the interest of justice, and ordered a new trial. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here. Defendant was accused of assault by her husband. The police called her to the station where she was interviewed. After she was told she would be placed under arrest she allegedly offered sex and money to the interviewing officer (Officer Persaud) to make the charges go away. The officer wore a wire to record further conversations about the bribery. After defendant was arraigned and represented by counsel, defendant was again interviewed in the back of a police car (by Sargeant Klein and her partner) concerning the alleged bribery. That conversation was also recorded. Statements made during custodial interrogation that were not preceded by Miranda warnings and statements made to police officers in the absence of counsel should not have been admitted. Defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object:

Officer Persaud should have known that in telling the defendant that she needed to come to the precinct station house in connection with his investigation into the allegations her husband had made against her, allegations about which she had already been told she would be arrested, placing her in an interview room, and then confronting her with the allegations and the evidence against her, including the existence of the order of protection, he was reasonably likely to elicit from the defendant an incriminating response … . * * *

… [T]the defendant’s alleged bribery of Officer Persaud and her allegedly false reporting of his sexual misconduct during that same encounter were “so inextricably interwoven in terms of both their temporal proximity and factual interrelationship” as to render unavoidable the conclusion that any interrogation concerning the allegedly false report would inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel… . Furthermore, the police were aware that the defendant was actually represented by an attorney and the interrogation actually entailed an infringement of her constitutional right to counsel by impermissible questioning on the represented crimes … . * * *

… [T]he defendant demonstrated the absence of “a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented” … for defense counsel’s stipulation to admission of a recording of the entire interview between the defendant and Sergeant Klein and her partner, and his failure to object to Sergeant Klein’s testimony recounting the same interview, or Officer Persaud’s testimony in which he recounted numerous statements made by the defendant, of which the People failed to provide notice as required by CPL 710.30(1)(a). People v Stephans, 2019 NY Slip Op 00473, Second Dept 1-23-19

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, RIGHT TO COUNSEL

,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED AT SENTENCING WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating an order of protection issued at sentencing and affirming the conviction, determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid:

… [T]he record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it … . The Supreme Court did not provide the defendant with an adequate explanation of the nature of the right to appeal or the consequences of waiving that right … . The court’s explanation was little more than a tautology: “[Y]ou have given up your right to appeal. Which means there will be no appeal with regards to anything in your case, and the only exception to that would be an illegal sentence or some constitutional issue. But basically you have given up your right to appeal. Do you understand?” … . Furthermore, the court’s statements at the plea allocution suggested that waiving the right to appeal was mandatory rather than a right which the defendant was being asked to voluntarily relinquish, and the court never elicited an acknowledgment that the defendant was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal… .

Although the record on appeal reflects that the defendant signed a written appeal waiver form, a written waiver “is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal” … . * * *

… [T]the Supreme Court failed to state on the record the reasons for issuing the order of protection at the time of sentencing …  Furthermore, … the court failed to fix the duration of the order of protection … . Under these circumstances, we vacate the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing … . People v Moncrieft, 2019 NY Slip Op 00466, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

,

BASED ON THE SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY IN THIS RAPE AND MURDER CASE, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his murder conviction. The defendant and his codefendant, DiPippo, were convicted of the 1995 rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl. At DiPippo’s third trial DiPippo was allowed to present evidence of third culpability. The third party, Gombert, had allegedly confessed to a fellow inmate. After DiPippo’s acquittal, defendant moved to vacate his conviction based upon the newly discovered evidence of third party culpability. The motion was denied without a hearing. The matter was remitted for a hearing:

The court which entered a judgment of conviction may, on motion of the defendant, vacate the judgment on the ground that “[n]ew evidence has been discovered since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial, which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant; provided that a motion based upon such ground must be made with due diligence after the discovery of such alleged new evidence”… .

“Once the parties have filed papers and all documentary evidence or information has been submitted, the court is obligated to consider the submitted material for the purpose of ascertaining whether the motion is determinable without a hearing to resolve questions of fact'”… . “[W]hether a defendant is entitled to a hearing on a CPL 440.10 motion is a discretionary determination” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction. In view of the parties’ submissions, particularly the third-party culpability evidence relating to Gombert, a hearing is necessary to promote justice … . Following a full evidentiary hearing, the court will be in a position to “make its final decision based upon the likely cumulative effect of the new evidence had it been presented at trial” … . People v Krivak, 2019 NY Slip Op 00464, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, ,

PROVIDING ILLEGAL HIV MEDICATIONS TO A PHARMACY FOR RESALE: (1) DID NOT CONSTITUTE GRAND LARCENY BECAUSE THE AGENT OF THE PHARMACY TO WHOM THE DRUGS WERE PROVIDED KNEW THE DRUGS WERE ILLEGAL AND THAT KNOWLEDGE IS IMPUTED TO THE CORPORATION; AND (2) DID NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL DIVERSION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS BECAUSE THE DRUGS WERE PROVIDED TO A CORPORATION, NOT TO A PERSON WHO HAD NO MEDICAL NEED FOR THEM. AN UNSEALED COMPILATION OF WIRETAP RECORDINGS CONSTRUCTED FROM SEALED ORIGINALS WAS ADMISSIBLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sgroi, reversing defendant’s grand larceny and criminal diversion of prescription medications convictions, determined that: (1) the knowledge of the agent of the pharmacy to whom the illegal HIV drugs were provided must be imputed to the corporation, therefore the corporation was deemed to know it was receiving and selling illegal drugs; (2) the statute prohibiting criminal diversion of prescription drugs is aimed at street sales of prescription drugs to those who have no medical need for them, therefore the statute does not apply to supplying illegal drugs to a pharmacy for resale; (3) the moneylaundering convictions and related sentences should be affirmed; and (4) a compilation of wiretap recordings, although not sealed, was made from properly sealed recordings and was properly authenticated, therefore the compilation was admissible:

… [T]here is no statutory requirement that a properly authenticated composite recording be compared against the sealed original recording. Three simultaneous original recordings of the intercepted communications were created in this case. The composite recording was compared against an original version of the recordings, and [a witness] testified that the composite recording was a true and accurate reflection of the content of the original. ,,, [A] sealed version of the original recording existed to deter alteration of, and permit challenge to, the composite, thus satisfying the statute. * * *

[Re; Grand Larceny:] The People’s theory in this case was that the defendant … wrongfully took money from [the pharmacy] by falsely representing that the medications they were selling were lawful to sell, transfer, and dispense. The defendant argues … that the People failed to prove that such a false representation of past or existing fact was made to [the pharmacy] because [the agent] , a high managerial employee of [the pharmacy], knew that the medications were not lawful to sell, transfer, and dispense, and thus, [the pharmacy], by imputation, also knew this fact. We agree. * * *

[Re: Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medications Penal Law § 178.25:] The defendant does not challenge the People’s premises that (1) the medications had left the legitimate stream of commerce rendered them “adulterated,” and (2) one cannot have a “medical need” for adulterated medications, as the term “medical need” is used in the statute. Thus, we do not address the validity of these premises. However, the defendant challenges the applicability of this statute to his alleged conduct on the basis that, by its terms, the statute cannot apply to a transfer of prescription medications to a corporation, as opposed to a person capable of having medical needs. Again, we agree. People v Gross, 2019 NY Slip Op 00461, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

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