You are here: / Criminal Law
,

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS DESTROYED BY THE POLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the jury should have been instructed to consider a lesser included offense and an adverse inference instruction should have been given concerning photographs destroyed by the police:

The court’s first-degree robbery charge, consistent with the indictment, required the People to prove that defendant used or threatened to use a knife; it is undisputed that a finding that defendant wielded some weapon or object other than a knife would not support first-degree robbery in this case. There was a reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, that he forcibly stole property from the victim, but did not use or threaten to use a knife in the course of doing so… . On the facts presented, the jury could have reasonably reached these findings by generally crediting the victim’s account, but finding that her testimony about seeing defendant using a knife was mistaken. Moreover, while this circumstance is not controlling, we note that the People joined in defendant’s request for submission of third-degree robbery.

… [T]the court should also have granted defendant’s request for an adverse inference charge as to surveillance photos taken in the victim’s livery cab after other photos, introduced at trial, were taken. The photos in evidence showed defendant in the back seat before he left and allegedly returned to rob the driver. The Police Department collected the photos but destroyed all but a few of them, which were introduced at trial through a detective who alleged that other members of his team selected them as the most relevant. Defendant established that the missing photos were “reasonably likely to be material” … , since they might have shown what type of weapon or object was used by the perpetrator. The record fails to support the People’s assertion that the camera could not have recorded the incident … . People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 08178, First Dept 11-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS DESTROYED BY THE POLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS DESTROYED BY THE POLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS DESTROYED BY THE POLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS DESTROYED BY THE POLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/ADVERSE INFERENCE (DESTRUCTION OF PHOTOS, CRIMINAL LAW, (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS DESTROYED BY THE POLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department, over a detailed and comprehensive dissent (worth reading), affirmed defendant’s attempted murder conviction. The dissent made it clear there was a strong right to counsel issue that, because it involved facts that are not on the record, must be brought in a motion to vacate the conviction. The dissent also argued defendant was deprived of a fair trial because he appeared in the same prison-issue clothes for eight days:

From the Dissent:

Since the Supreme Court was informed at the time of arraignment in Queens County that the defendant had established an attorney-client relationship with Eaddy in both the Kings County and Queens County cases, it was incumbent upon the court to assign her as counsel unless she was not ready, willing, or able to accept the assignment… . At the time of arraignment, there was no risk that Eaddy’s participation would have delayed or disrupted the proceedings, created any conflict of interest, or resulted in prejudice to the prosecution or the defense. To the contrary, Eaddy’s familiarity with the defendant and the case, as well as the defendant’s preference for her as his assigned counsel, would most likely have expedited matters. Indeed, the attorney who was assigned to represent the defendant at the arraignment, Siff, was eventually discharged in March 2011 and replaced with Coppin, with whom the defendant expressed dissatisfaction and requested further substitution.

Instead of inquiring as to Eaddy’s availability at the time of arraignment, the Supreme Court summarily denied the defendant’s request for the constitutionally impermissible reason that the defendant was too indigent to pay for her services  … . * * *

Here, there is no question that the clothing worn by the defendant was prison-issued clothing. The defendant wore the same green top and bottom for three days of jury selection and more than five days of trial testimony. Even the Supreme Court described the defendant’s clothing as “that thing.” Based upon the description of the clothes and the fact that the defendant wore the same clothes for at least eight days, a reasonable juror could only conclude that the clothing was prison garb. Given the defendant’s objection to wearing dirty prison clothes, I conclude that he preserved his contention for appellate review, and that, as a matter of law, he was deprived of a fair trial … . People v Ellis, 2018 NY Slip Op 08143, Second Dept 11-28-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIALS, PRISON CLOTHES, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/CLOTHES (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIALS, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))

,

ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A PISTOL ALLEGED TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME WAS NOT ERROR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the introduction of a handgun alleged to be the same type used in the crime and recovered three months after the crime was not error:

The court providently exercised its discretion in admitting a black nine millimeter pistol, the same type of weapon that, according to other evidence, was used in the crime. The pistol was recovered, pursuant to a search warrant, from defendant’s girlfriend’s apartment three months after the commission of the crime, and the evidence showed that defendant resided in that apartment. This evidence was relevant to show that defendant had access to that type of weapon, and it thus tended to establish his involvement in the charged crimes … . The jury could have drawn a reasonable inference that the weapon was in defendant’s possession at the time of the crime, and the availability of other inferences went to weight rather than admissibility. Furthermore, the probative value of this evidence, which the court carefully limited, outweighed any prejudicial effect. People v Birkett, 2018 NY Slip Op 08072, First Dept 11-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A PISTOL ALLEGED TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME WAS NOT ERROR (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A PISTOL ALLEGED TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME WAS NOT ERROR (FIRST DEPT))/HANDGUNS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A PISTOL ALLEGED TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME WAS NOT ERROR (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A PISTOL ALLEGED TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME WAS NOT ERROR (FIRST DEPT))

,

ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENTERPRISE AND HIS INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN AFFAIRS OF THE ENTERPRISE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a memorandum decision supplemented with an extensive concurring opinion, determined that the defendant’s conviction of enterprise corruption (Penal Law 460.20) was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

… [T]he proof elicited at trial was not legally sufficient to establish the elements of defendant’s knowledge of the existence of the subject criminal enterprise and the nature of its affairs or his intent to participate in such affairs … .

On the mens rea element, the People were required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant, “having knowledge of the existence of a criminal enterprise and the nature of its activities,” and, “being employed by or associated with such enterprise . . . intentionally conduct[ed] or participate[d] in the affairs of an enterprise” … . Consistent with this statutory mens rea requirement, the trial court additionally instructed the jury, without objection, that the People were required to show that defendant had “chosen to be part of the group and to have worked as a member of it or in affiliation with it to achieve its criminal purposes.”

Here, the evidence of defendant’s knowledge of the existence of the criminal enterprise and his intention to participate in its affairs fell short as a matter of law. The evidence of defendant’s participation in the three requisite criminal acts included in the pattern activity alone does not establish defendant’s knowledge of the existence of the criminal enterprise and the nature of its activities. In addition, the critical trial testimony of the People’s cooperating witness demonstrated that defendant was isolated from — rather than employed by or associated with — the enterprise, and that defendant acted independently on his own behalf, with the singular purpose of serving his own interests. People v Jones, 2018 NY Slip Op 08058, CtApp 11-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENTERPRISE AND HIS INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN AFFAIRS OF THE ENTERPRISE (CT APP))/ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION (EVIDENCE, ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENTERPRISE AND HIS INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN AFFAIRS OF THE ENTERPRISE (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENTERPRISE AND HIS INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN AFFAIRS OF THE ENTERPRISE (CT APP))

,

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION MET ITS STATUTORY BURDEN TO ASSIST PETITIONER, A SEX OFFENDER, IN FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a partial dissent and an extensive dissenting opinion, determined that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) had met its burden of providing assistance to sex offenders in finding suitable housing upon release. Here the petitioner was transferred to a residential treatment facility (RTF) when his sentence was complete because he was unable to find suitable housing as required by the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA):

Correction Law § 201 (5) requires DOCCS to assist inmates prior to release and under supervision to secure housing. DOCCS has interpreted its obligation under the statute as satisfied when it actively investigates and approves residences that have been identified by inmates and when it provides the inmates with adequate resources to allow them to propose residences for investigation and approval. This interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the statute as well as the larger statutory framework. While the agency is free, in its discretion, to provide additional assistance to inmates in locating SARA-compliant housing — particularly where an inmate is nearing the maximum expiration date or is residing in an RTF with the associated restrictions on the ability to conduct a comprehensive search — there is no statutory basis in Correction Law § 201 (5) for imposing such an obligation.

As to whether DOCCS met its obligation in this particular case, the record demonstrates that petitioner met biweekly with an ORC regarding SARA-compliant housing and also met several times with his parole officer. Petitioner was able to propose 58 residences which DOCCS investigated for SARA-compliance. The agency also affirmatively identified at least two housing options for petitioner in New York City — one was rejected by petitioner on the basis that he could not afford it and the other was the shelter in Manhattan where he was ultimately housed. Certainly, the record reflects that DOCCS provided more than passive assistance, given that it affirmatively contacted other agencies and providers on petitioner’s behalf because of his financial needs. Indeed, petitioner was successfully placed with New York City’s DHS through DOCCS’ efforts, which were adequate to meet its statutory obligation to provide assistance.

Finally, we agree with the Appellate Division that there was insufficient record evidence to establish that DOCCS’ determination to place petitioner at the Woodbourne RTF was irrational or that the conditions of his placement at that facility were in violation of the agency’s statutory or regulatory obligations …  .Matter of Gonzalez v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 08057, CtApp 11-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION MET ITS STATUTORY BURDEN TO ASSIST PETITIONER, A SEX OFFENDER, IN FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP))/CORRECTION LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, HOUSING, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION MET ITS STATUTORY BURDEN TO ASSIST PETITIONER, A SEX OFFENDER, IN FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP))/DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (DOCCS) (THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION MET ITS STATUTORY BURDEN TO ASSIST PETITIONER, A SEX OFFENDER, IN FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP))/SEX OFFENDERS (THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION MET ITS STATUTORY BURDEN TO ASSIST PETITIONER, A SEX OFFENDER, IN FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP))/CORRECTION LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, HOUSING, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION MET ITS STATUTORY BURDEN TO ASSIST PETITIONER, A SEX OFFENDER, IN FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP))

, ,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over two separate dissenting opinions, determined that the potential penalty of deportation entitles a defendant to a jury trial, even if, as here, the charges are B misdemeanors which are triable without a jury pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 340.40:

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that a defendant will be judged by a jury of peers if charged with a serious crime. Today, as a matter of first impression, we hold that a noncitizen defendant who demonstrates that a charged crime carries the potential penalty of deportation—i.e. removal from the country—is entitled to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment. * * *

Defendant argues that, although the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial did not automatically attach to the crimes with which he was charged because they are punishable by less than a six-month term of incarceration, he met his burden of establishing that the crimes carry an additional penalty beyond incarceration—namely, deportation—which he contends is a sufficiently severe penalty to rebut the presumption that the crimes are petty for Sixth Amendment purposes. We agree. People v Suazo, 2018 NY Slip Op 08056, CtApp 11-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY TRIALS, EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP))/JURY TRIALS (CRIMINAL LAW,  EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY TRIALS, EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY TRIALS, EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP))

UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE WAIVER HERE INCLUDED ONLY THE DAY OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the waiver of indictment was invalid because it did not include the approximate time of the offense. The court noted that the time allegations required for an indictment do not include the approximate time of the offense, but the approximate time must be included in a waiver of indictment:

Courts have held that “[w]hen time is not an essential element of an offense, the indictment, as supplemented by a bill of particulars, may allege the time in approximate terms. The indictment must, however, set forth a time interval which reasonably serves the function of protecting defendant’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, so as to enable the defendant to prepare a defense and to use the judgment against further prosecution for the same crime” … . Those cases deal with indictments, however, not waivers of indictment. Pursuant to the statute, an indictment must include a statement “that the offense charged therein was committed on, or on or about, a designated date, or during a designated period of time” (CPL 200.50 [6]), whereas CPL 195.20 requires that waivers of indictment include the offense’s “date and approximate time” … . “[I]n the interpretation of a statute[,] we must assume that the Legislature did not deliberately place a phrase in the statute which was intended to serve no purpose[,] and each word must be read and given a distinct and consistent meaning” … . Simply stating that the offense occurred on, or on or about, a specified date or within a range of time (such as a certain week, month or span of months) may meet the statutory requirements for an indictment … , but is insufficient to meet CPL 195.20’s additional “approximate time” requirement for a waiver of indictment … . Any other interpretation would render the statute’s language requiring the “approximate time” superfluous or redundant. People v Busch-Scardino, 2018 NY Slip Op 07979, Third Dept 11-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE WAIVER HERE INCLUDED ONLY THE DAY OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (THIRD DEPT))/WAIVER OF INDICTMENT  (UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE WAIVER HERE INCLUDED ONLY THE DAY OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (THIRD DEPT))/TIME (WAIVER OF INDICTMENT, UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE WAIVER HERE INCLUDED ONLY THE DAY OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (THIRD DEPT))

,

DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME AND THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY, THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s plea, determined that the court should have conducted further inquiry after defendant, during the plea colloquy, made a statement about the age of the victim which negated an element of the crime. The error triggered the narrow exception to the preservation requirement:

Defendant contends that the plea must be vacated because he negated an essential element of the crime at sentencing. Although the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion in order to preserve this issue for our review, we find that a statement made by defendant at sentencing cast doubt upon his guilt and, therefore, triggered “the narrow exception to the preservation requirement and impos[ed] a duty upon County Court ‘to inquire further to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea [was] knowing and voluntary'” … . “[S]tatements made by a defendant that negate an element of the crime to which a plea has been entered . . . or otherwise suggest an involuntary plea require[s] the trial court to then conduct a further inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … .

At sentencing, defendant stated that the sexual conduct started when the victim was 13 years old, not 12 years old. Such statement by defendant negated the element of predatory sexual assault against a child in the first degree that requires that the victim be under the age of 13 (see Penal Law § 130.96). Notwithstanding defendant’s statement, County Court did not make any further inquiry or give defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea prior to proceeding to sentencing. People v Brassard, 2018 NY Slip Op 07978, Third Dept 11-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME AND THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY, THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME AND THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY, THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/PLEA COLLOQUY  (DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME AND THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY, THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should have held a hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction alleging ineffective assistance counsel. i.e., the failure to move to dismiss the indictment based on a speedy trial violation. Although the People raised a question of fact about whether defendant’s counsel consented to certain adjournments, the issue was not conclusively demonstrated, requiring a hearing:

Defendant argued that he was deprived of effective assistance because his counsel failed to move to dismiss the indictment based on a violation of his statutory speedy trial rights. Failure to make a meritorious speedy trial motion, which would result in dismissal of the indictment, is sufficiently egregious to amount to ineffective assistance… . There is ordinarily no strategic reason for counsel to fail to make a dispositive motion that would result in dismissal of the charges with prejudice, so long as it is shown that the motion would have been successful … . …

The Court of Appeals has clarified that ” [a]djournments consented to by the defense must be clearly expressed to relieve the People of the responsibility for that portion of the delay. Defense counsel’s failure to object to the adjournment or failure to appear does not constitute consent” … A court may not deny a motion to dismiss for a statutory speedy trial violation “without a hearing unless ‘[a]n allegation of fact essential to support the motion is conclusively refuted by unquestionable proof'” … . ” Of course, only those periods for which the People have not provided ‘unquestionable documentary proof’ — for example, a transcript or letter evidencing defendant’s consent — need be addressed at any hearing” … . At least one court has held that calendar and file jacket notations” do not constitute unquestionable proof to meet the People’s “burden of demonstrating sufficient excludable time” … . People v Matteson, 2018 NY Slip Op 07976, Third Dept 11-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (VACATE CONVICTION, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (VACATE CONVICTION, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, (VACATE CONVICTION, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO ( THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/SPEEDY TRIAL (VACATE CONVICTION,  THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the denial of defendant’s request to present an alibi witness was reversible error, despite the fact that a notice of alibi had not been served. The People had opened the door at trial, creating the need to call the alibi witness:

Pursuant to CPL 250.20 (3), “[i]f at the trial the defendant calls such an alibi witness without having served the demanded notice of alibi, . . . the court may exclude any testimony of such witness relating to the alibi defense.” Precluding a criminal defendant from proffering evidence in support of his or her own case implicates the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment… , and, although CPL 250.20 (3) explicitly states that the trial court’s decision to permit a late notice of alibi is discretionary, preclusion is only an appropriate penalty “in the most egregious circumstances”… . When a defendant’s “omission was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage that would minimize the effectiveness of cross-examination and the ability to adduce rebuttal evidence, it would be entirely consistent with the purposes of the Compulsory Process Clause simply to exclude the witness'[s] testimony”… .

… [A]lthough defendant did not serve an alibi notice in response to the People’s demand for same, defendant did not intend to call an alibi witness except that the People — knowing that defendant had testified to having an alibi during the grand jury but that he had not presented that defense at trial — directly elicited testimony … about what defendant was doing on the night of the shooting. In response to follow-up questions by the People, [the witness] provided the alibi witness’s first name and generally discussed that defendant was friends with this person. The People’s question regarding what defendant was doing the night of the shooting was the first reference to defendant’s alibi during the trial, and defendant thereafter sought permission to call his friend … as a witness for the first time. The People, despite raising and pursuing this line of questioning, objected because defendant had not served an alibi notice. Defendant argued that the People opened the door and created the issue and, as a result, defendant should not be precluded from calling Steward. We agree. People v Perkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 07972, Third Dept 11-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALIBI WITNESS, (THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE, THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALIBI WITNESS, THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/ALIBI WITNESS (THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))

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