You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY MET THE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE APPELLATE REVIEW CRITERIA (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissent, determined the evidence of serious physical injury in this first degree assault case met the “legally sufficient evidence” standard of appellate review. The victim was shot in the leg and bullet fragments remain in his body:

The victim testified that he can still “feel [the bullet] poking out,” and that he continues to endure the effects “of the metal inside [his] leg.” Even four years after the shooting, the victim noted that the injury still “disturbs” him at times, and that “something is wrong with [his] leg.” The victim stated that, because the bullet “didn’t come out of [his] leg,” his “life” had been “tampered with.” For instance, he can no longer participate in competitive sports, as the injury would present a “very, very, very, very big risk.” The medical expert further testified that there are “many repercussions” of the type of muscle damage that the victim sustained: “Muscle damage can cause long-term injuries to the kidneys from leakage of chemicals from the muscle, toxic to the kidneys, can cause pain and weakness, difficulty walking.”

As the dissent notes, there is certainly record evidence favorable to the defense that, when viewed in isolation, might have presented an issue of fact for the jury. That said, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as our legal sufficiency standard requires, we have no trouble concluding that the jury acted rationally in finding that the victim’s gunshot wound constituted a “serious physical injury” … . People v Garland, 2018 NY Slip Op 07927, CtApp 11-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY MET THE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE APPELLATE REVIEW CRITERIA (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY MET THE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE APPELLATE REVIEW CRITERIA (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY MET THE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE APPELLATE REVIEW CRITERIA (CT APP))/SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (CRIMINAL LAW, ASSAULT, EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY MET THE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE APPELLATE REVIEW CRITERIA (CT APP))/LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY MET THE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE APPELLATE REVIEW CRITERIA (CT APP))/ASSAULT (EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY MET THE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE APPELLATE REVIEW CRITERIA (CT APP))

COUNTERFEIT CONCERT TICKETS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE STATUTE PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined that counterfeit concert tickets fall within the ambit of the statute prohibiting possession of a forged instrument:

Defendant’s argument, a jurisdictional challenge to the indictments against him, amounts to the claim that the otherwise valid statement of the elements of the crime in each count is negated by the specific allegation in the “to wit” phrase that the forged instrument purported to be an event ticket. He insists, in effect, that counterfeit event tickets could never fall within the ambit of the second-degree forgery statute. Defendant’s rationale is that event tickets, the instruments that defendant’s counterfeit documents purported to be, are merely revocable licenses and do not “affect a legal right, interest, obligation or status.” …

Defendant’s premise that event tickets are revocable licenses is true. The case law saying as much is venerable. The purchase of an event admission ticket gives the holder “a revocable license . . . to enter the building in which [the event is held], and to attend the performance” … . An event ticket, in other words, is a permission slip, subject to retraction.

It does not follow, however, that an event ticket does not affect a legal right, i.e., “right created or recognized by law” … , or status, i.e., “legal condition, whether personal or proprietary” … . Indeed, the same decisions on which defendant relies to demonstrate the revocable nature of event tickets also describe the legal rights, albeit limited, that a ticket evidences or otherwise affects. An event ticket, the Court wrote, “is a license, issued by the proprietor . . . as convenient evidence of the right of the holder to admission”… . The Legislature has similarly defined a ticket, in the context of entertainment and the arts generally, as “any evidence of the right of entry to any place of entertainment”… . People v Watts, 2018 NY Slip Op 07926, CtApp 11-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (FORGED INSTRUMENTS, COUNTERFEIT CONCERT TICKETS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE STATUTE PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT (CT APP))/FORGED INSTRUMENTS, POSSESSION OF (COUNTERFEIT CONCERT TICKETS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE STATUTE PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT (CT APP))/CONCERT TICKETS (FORGED INSTRUMENTS, COUNTERFEIT CONCERT TICKETS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE STATUTE PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT (CT APP))

, ,

THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PRESENT A WITNESS TO THE GRAND JURY, AS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT, DID NOT RISE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT, THEREFORE THE ISSUE DID NOT SURVIVE DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge concurrence, determined the defendant’s argument that the integrity of the grand jury proceedings was impaired by the prosecution’s failure to call a witness requested by the defendant did not raise a constitutional issue and therefore was precluded by defendant’s guilty plea:

Defendant does not contend that the evidence before the grand jury was insufficient to support the indictment. Instead, defendant claims that the prosecutor’s conduct impaired the integrity of the grand jury proceeding and argues his motion to dismiss the indictment for defective grand jury proceedings on that ground is not forfeited by his guilty plea. …

… [W]e have explained that even after entering a valid guilty plea, “a defendant may not forfeit a claim of a constitutional [*2]defect implicating the integrity of the process” …  and we have recognized that certain claimed defects in a grand jury proceeding rise to this level … .

Defendant’s claim in this case rests on the purported exclusion of a witness, the substance of whose testimony was contained in an affidavit provided to the courts below. That proffered testimony was largely inadmissible and, in any event, would have inculpated him by establishing that he had a relationship with the complainant and had been in her presence in violation of an order of protection. The exclusion of such testimony before the grand jury does not present “a constitutional defect implicating the integrity of the process”…  and accordingly the claimed violation in this case did not survive defendant’s guilty plea.  People v Manragh, 2018 NY Slip Op 07924, CtApp 11-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PRESENT A WITNESS TO THE GRAND JURY, AS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT, DID NOT RISE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT, THEREFORE THE ISSUE DID NOT SURVIVE DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY, THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PRESENT A WITNESS TO THE GRAND JURY, AS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT, DID NOT RISE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT, THEREFORE THE ISSUE DID NOT SURVIVE DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, GUILTY PLEA, THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PRESENT A WITNESS TO THE GRAND JURY, AS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT, DID NOT RISE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT, THEREFORE THE ISSUE DID NOT SURVIVE DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (CT APP))/GUILTY PLEA (APPEALS, HE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PRESENT A WITNESS TO THE GRAND JURY, AS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT, DID NOT RISE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT, THEREFORE THE ISSUE DID NOT SURVIVE DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (CT APP))/GRAND JURY (APPEALS, GUILTY PLEA, THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PRESENT A WITNESS TO THE GRAND JURY, AS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT, DID NOT RISE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT, THEREFORE THE ISSUE DID NOT SURVIVE DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (CT APP))

,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly suppressed evidence seized at the time of the illegal arrest, as well as the subsequent lineup identification:

… [A]t the time of the gunpoint seizure of the two defendants, the police had an anonymous tip that an undescribed suspect or suspects had burglarized an unspecified apartment on the sixth floor of a building, they spoke to building residents who reported noise on that floor, and they saw defendants leaving an apartment on that floor carrying undescribed bags. The totality of this information failed to provide reasonable suspicion to support an immediate forcible seizure without any inquiry. The police learned additional information, but only after the unlawful seizure.

Therefore, the court properly suppressed all physical evidence as fruit of the illegality. Furthermore, the court also granted suppression, independently of the initial illegality, because the witness’s recollection about the subsequent search of the contents of the bags, and about the recovery of gloves from the hallway floor, was so limited that the People did not meet their initial burden of coming forward with credible evidence to establish either a search of the bags incident to a lawful arrest or the abandonment of the gloves … .

The record also supports the court’s determination to suppress an officer’s lineup identification of [defendant] Salkey, who had fled the scene, as the unattenuated fruit of the unlawful stop and frisk … . The vague testimony provided no explanation of how Salkey came to be placed in a lineup, and no basis for finding attenuation from the initial illegality. People v Brown, 2018 NY Slip Op 07956, First Dept 11-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPRESSION  (CRIMINAL LAW,  SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW,  SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT))/LINEUPS (CRIMINAL LAW,  SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT))/IDENTIFICATION (LINEUPS, (CRIMINAL LAW,  SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

STATUTE PROHIBITING LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO ALL LEVEL THREE OFFENDERS, NOT ONLY THOSE INCARCERATED FOR AN ENUMERATED SEX CRIME AT THE TIME OF THEIR RELEASE ON PAROLE, HERE THE PETITIONER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADJUDICATED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER BUT WAS BEING PAROLED AFTER INCARCERATION FOR A ROBBERY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, determined that the Executive Law provision which prohibits level three sex offenders from entering school grounds applies to all level three sex offenders, not only those who are incarcerated for one of the enumerated sex crimes at the time they are released on parole. Petitioner was convicted of rape and adjudicated a level three offender in 1994. Subsequently petition was convicted of and incarcerated for robbery, which is not one of the enumerated crimes. The court noted that it was not, under administrative law principles, required to defer to the Board of Parole’s ruling, but nevertheless it agreed with the ruling and Supreme Court’s denial of the petition. The Fourth Department found the statute is ambiguous applying statutory-construction rules and then turned to the legislative history of the statute (Executive Law 259-c (14)):

When Executive Law § 259-c (14) was first enacted, the school grounds mandatory condition applied only to persons serving a sentence for an enumerated offense against a minor … . In 2005, the legislature amended the statute to add the reference to level three sex offenders … . The sponsors’ memorandum defined the purpose of that amendment: “To prohibit sex offenders placed on conditional release or parole from entering upon school grounds or other facilities where the individual has been designated as a level three sex offender” … . As justification, the sponsors offered: “There is a need to prohibit those sex offenders who are determined to pose the most risk to children from entering upon school grounds or other areas where children are cared for” … . …

Based on our review of the legislative history relating to the enactment of the relevant amendment to Executive Law § 259-c (14), we conclude that there existed a consensus among governmental and nongovernmental organizations that, for good or ill, the amended language was intended to extend the school grounds mandatory condition to all persons conditionally released or released to parole who have been designated level three sex offender. People ex rel. Garcia v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 07868, Fourth Dept 11-16-18 

CRIMINAL LAW (STATUTE PROHIBITING LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO ALL LEVEL THREE OFFENDERS, NOT ONLY THOSE INCARCERATED FOR AN ENUMERATED SEX CRIME AT THE TIME OF THEIR RELEASE ON PAROLE, HERE THE PETITIONER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADJUDICATED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER BUT WAS BEING PAROLED AFTER INCARCERATION FOR A ROBBERY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA)  (STATUTE PROHIBITING LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO ALL LEVEL THREE OFFENDERS, NOT ONLY THOSE INCARCERATED FOR AN ENUMERATED SEX CRIME AT THE TIME OF THEIR RELEASE ON PAROLE, HERE THE PETITIONER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADJUDICATED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER BUT WAS BEING PAROLED AFTER INCARCERATION FOR A ROBBERY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT))/PAROLE (SEX OFFENDERS, STATUTE PROHIBITING LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO ALL LEVEL THREE OFFENDERS, NOT ONLY THOSE INCARCERATED FOR AN ENUMERATED SEX CRIME AT THE TIME OF THEIR RELEASE ON PAROLE, HERE THE PETITIONER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADJUDICATED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER BUT WAS BEING PAROLED AFTER INCARCERATION FOR A ROBBERY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT))/SCHOOL GROUNDS (SEX OFFENDERS, PAROLE, STATUTE PROHIBITING LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO ALL LEVEL THREE OFFENDERS, NOT ONLY THOSE INCARCERATED FOR AN ENUMERATED SEX CRIME AT THE TIME OF THEIR RELEASE ON PAROLE, HERE THE PETITIONER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADJUDICATED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER BUT WAS BEING PAROLED AFTER INCARCERATION FOR A ROBBERY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT))EXECUTIVE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, SCHOOL GROUNDS, PAROLE, STATUTE PROHIBITING LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO ALL LEVEL THREE OFFENDERS, NOT ONLY THOSE INCARCERATED FOR AN ENUMERATED SEX CRIME AT THE TIME OF THEIR RELEASE ON PAROLE, HERE THE PETITIONER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADJUDICATED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER BUT WAS BEING PAROLED AFTER INCARCERATION FOR A ROBBERY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined petitioner had the right to appeal a ruling which granted relief he had requested in the alternative but denied the more complete relief requested in the petition. The court further found that the evidence supported the finding that petitioner is a detained sex offender with a mental abnormality and required a regimen of strict and intensive superivsion and treatment (SIST):

… [W]e conclude that petitioner is aggrieved by the order because, although Supreme Court granted one of the forms of the relief he requested in the alternative, i.e., release under a regimen of SIST, the primary relief he sought was release to the community without conditions, and the denial of that part of the petition involved a substantial right of petitioner … . …

We … reject petitioner’s contention that basing the determination that he has a mental abnormality on a diagnosis of unspecified paraphilic disorder does not comport with the requirements of due process. That diagnosis is contained in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Although there is limited case law concerning that diagnosis, the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that basing such a determination on the very similar former diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified (paraphilia NOS) meets the requirements of due process … , and the diagnosis of unspecified paraphilic disorder has similar diagnostic requirements as the former diagnosis of paraphilia NOS. …

In addition, “to the extent that [petitioner] challenges the validity of [unspecified paraphilic disorder] as a predicate condition, disease or disorder,’ we need not reach that argument because he did not mount a Frye challenge to the diagnosis” … . Matter of Luis S. v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07852, Fourth Dept 11-16-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, (PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT))/STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT))

,

FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND FIRST DEGREE REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, determined the Tramadol pills possessed by the inmate defendant did not constitute dangerous contraband, requiring a reduction of the conviction from promoting prison contraband first degree to second degree. The Fourth Department disagreed with the cases from other departments which held small amounts of drugs to constituted dangerous contraband:

The Court of Appeals in People v Finley (10 NY3d 647 [2008]) considered the unrelated prosecutions of two inmates for promoting and attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree, both involving small amounts of marihuana. The Court pronounced the test for courts to apply: “[T]he test for determining whether an item is dangerous contraband is whether its particular characteristics are such that there is a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility’s institutional safety or security” (id. at 657). * * *

We recognize that, after Finley was decided, some courts have considered cases involving the possession of drugs other than marihuana and have concluded that the possessed drugs were dangerous contraband on what may be viewed as less “specific, competent proof” of a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats … . For example, testimony that the defendants were engaged in drug trafficking has been held to be sufficient to establish that there was dangerous contraband (see e.g. People v Ariosa, 100 AD3d 1264, 1265-1266 [3d Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1013 [2013]; People v Cooper, 67 AD3d 1254, 1256-1257 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 799 [2010]). We disagree with those cases to the extent that they do not focus on the dangerousness of the use of the particular drug at issue, but instead focus on broad concerns that could involve any sort of contraband, such as alcohol, cigarettes or other items that are not dangerous in themselves … . People v Flagg, 2018 NY Slip Op 07849, Fourth Dept (11-16-18

CRIMINAL LAW (FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND FIRST DEGREE REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND FIRST DEGREE REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT))/DANGEROUS CONTRABAND (CRIMINAL LAW, FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND FIRST DEGREE REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT))/INMATES (CRIMINAL LAW, CONTRABAND, FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND FIRST DEGREE REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRABAND (CRIMINAL LAW, INMATES, FOUR TRAMADOL PILLS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS CONTRABAND, PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND FIRST DEGREE REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined two evidentiary errors deprived defendant of a fair trial. Defendant was precluded from presenting evidence of a witness’s motive to lie, and the evidence of prompt outcry should not have included the identity of the assailant:

It is well settled that ” [t]he right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations’ “… . “It is also well settled that in presenting the defense, counsel for the defendant may establish, during both cross[-]examination and on [defendant’s] direct case, the [complainant’s] . . . motive to lie . . . This is not a collateral inquiry, but is directly probative on the issue of credibility’ ” … , “the excluded evidence was not speculative . . . or cumulative . . . , as it went directly to the credibility of the complainant[, and] the defense counsel offered a good faith basis for the excluded line of questioning [and evidence].” “Because it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict, the error cannot be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and reversal therefore is required” … .

Defendant also correctly contends that the court erred in permitting the People to present prompt outcry testimony that exceeded the proper scope of such testimony. Although “evidence that a victim of sexual assault promptly complained about the incident is admissible to corroborate the allegation that an assault took place” … , such evidence is limited to “only the fact of a complaint, not its accompanying details,” including the identity of the assailant … . We thus conclude that the court erred in permitting two of the three prompt outcry witnesses to testify concerning the identity of the alleged assailant … .

We thus conclude that either error, alone, would justify reversal and that the cumulative effect of the errors denied defendant a fair trial … . People v Vo, 2018 NY Slip Op 07909, Fourth Dept 11-16-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/LIE, MOTIVE TO (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/PROMPT OUTCRY (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, PROMPT OUTCRY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, PROMPT OUTCRY,  DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO LIE, PROMPT OUTCRY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD NOT TO CONSIDER THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS PROVEN FOR THE HIGHER OFFENSE, THE JURY ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE ‘TEMPORARY INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON’ DEFENSE, JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the jury should have been instructed to stop deliberating on other counts if they found the justification defense to have been proven. The Second Department further determined that the facts justified a jury instruction on the temporary and innocent possession of a weapon:

Here, we agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court’s jury charge in conjunction with the verdict sheet failed to convey to the jury that if it found the defendant not guilty based on justification as to assault in the first degree, then “it should simply render a verdict of acquittal and cease deliberation, without regard to” assault in the second degree … . Thus, the court’s instructions, together with the verdict sheet, may have led the jurors to conclude that deliberation on each assault count … required reconsideration of the justification defense, even if they had already acquitted the defendant of assault in the first degree based on justification… . Since we cannot say with any certainty and there is no way of knowing whether the acquittal on assault in the first degree was based on a finding of justification, a new trial is necessary … . In light of the defendant’s acquittal on the charge of assault in the first degree, the highest offense for which the defendant may be retried is assault in the second degree … . …

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, the evidence sufficiently supported the defense of temporary and lawful possession of a weapon … . The defendant testified that he picked up a kitchen knife from the floor only after Grandu jumped on his back, at which point Herron was hitting the defendant in the head with her hands and with a pan while Grandu restrained the defendant. Although the defendant then stabbed Grandu with the knife, “should a jury believe that the defendant’s use of the knife was justified, such use would have been lawful, and not utterly at odds with [the defendant’s] claim of” temporary and innocent possession … . People v Fletcher, 2018 NY Slip Op 07747, Second Dept 11-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD NOT TO CONSIDER THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS PROVEN FOR THE HIGHER OFFENSE, THE JURY ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE ‘TEMPORARY INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON’ DEFENSE, JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD NOT TO CONSIDER THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS PROVEN FOR THE HIGHER OFFENSE, THE JURY ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE ‘TEMPORARY INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON’ DEFENSE, JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/JUSTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD NOT TO CONSIDER THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS PROVEN FOR THE HIGHER OFFENSE, THE JURY ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE ‘TEMPORARY INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON’ DEFENSE, JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/TEMPORARY INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON (CRIMINAL LAW, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD NOT TO CONSIDER THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS PROVEN FOR THE HIGHER OFFENSE, THE JURY ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE ‘TEMPORARY INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON’ DEFENSE, JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/WEAPON, POSSESSION OF (THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD NOT TO CONSIDER THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS PROVEN FOR THE HIGHER OFFENSE, THE JURY ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE ‘TEMPORARY INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON’ DEFENSE, JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate her conviction on ineffective assistance grounds was properly denied. The prosecution presented 13 medical professional in support of its shaken baby case, but defense counsel did not present a medical expert:

Instead, trial counsel obtained the written report of a medical expert before the trial and retained a pediatric neurologist as a consulting expert, whom he consulted as issues arose during trial. During cross-examination of the People’s witnesses, trial counsel elicited testimony that supported the defendant’s theory of the case that the infant sustained injuries prior to being left at the defendant’s home.  * * *

Generally, whether to call an expert is a tactical decision … . In many instances, cross-examination of the People’s expert will be sufficient to expose defects in an expert’s presentation … . “As long as the defense reflects a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented, even if unsuccessful, it will not fall to the level of ineffective assistance” … . …

The record shows that trial counsel made efforts to investigate the medical issues in this case. He effectively cross-examined the People’s witnesses, including the experts, and elicited testimony that was damaging to the People’s case. The fact that the defense did not call its own expert witnesses was the result of trial counsel’s legal strategy that the best way to defend this case was through impeachment of the People’s witnesses. Under the particular circumstances of this case, trial counsel provided effective representation … . People v Caldavado, 2018 NY Slip Op 07743, Second Dept 11-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, EVIDENCE, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION, SHAKEN BABY CASE, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (CRIMINAL LAW, SHAKEN BABY, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND 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