You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE JUDGE, IN RENDERING THE VERDICT, STATED THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT PROVEN HE WAS FRAMED AND THEREFORE WAS GUILTY; THAT SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE DEFENDANT, REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the court, in rendering its verdict, shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:

… Supreme Court, in rendering its verdict, impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. The defendant asserted at trial that he had been framed by the police. In delivering its verdict, the court ruled that “the credible testimony before me does not persuade this Court beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant was in fact framed. And that being so . . . I find [the] defendant guilty.” The court’s finding “reverses the constitutionally required principles that the defense bears no burden and that it is the prosecution that must introduce evidence sufficient to persuade the fact finder, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant’s guilt” … . People v Steward, 2025 NY Slip Op 01825, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Here the judge, in rendering the verdict, stated the defendant was found guilty because the defendant had not proven he was framed. Shifting the burden of proof to the defendant required reversal and a new trial.

 

,

THE JUDGE DID NOT HOLD A COMPETENCY HEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE MANDATED PROCEDURES IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 730; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, ordering a reconstruction hearing on the defendant’s competence to stand trial, determined that the judge had not followed the procedures mandated by Criminal Procedure Law article 730:

“Article 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law sets out the procedures courts of this State must follow in order to prevent the criminal trial of [an incompetent] defendant” … . The CPL expressly provides that “[w]hen the examination reports submitted to the court show that the psychiatric examiners are not unanimous in their opinion as to whether the defendant is or is not an incapacitated person . . . the court must conduct a hearing to determine the issue of capacity” (CPL 730.30[4] …).. “That section is mandatory and not discretionary” … .

Here, once the Supreme Court made a threshold determination that the defendant’s conduct warranted an examination, it should have followed the procedures mandated by CPL article 730. The failure to comply with the statute deprived the defendant of the right to a full and fair determination of his mental capacity to stand trial … . We find, however, that the requirements of CPL article 730 can be satisfied by a reconstruction hearing … .  People v Petty, 2025 NY Slip Op 01824, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: If the court orders a psychiatric examination to determine whether defendant is an incapacitated person and the psychiatric examiners are not unanimous, the court must conduct a hearing on the issue of capacity.​

 

, ,

THE NEW YORK CITY CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD (CCRB) IS NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL THE RECORD OF THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND TRIAL OF AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO SHOT A MAN IN A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCormick, determined the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) was not entitled to unseal the record of a criminal action which had resulted in the acquittal of an off-duty police officer (the defendant) who shot and killed a man during a road rage incident:

At his criminal trial, the defendant presented a justification defense … [and] the jury acquitted him of all charges. As a result, the records pertaining to the defendant’s arrest and criminal prosecution were sealed (see CPL 160.50). * * *

The CCRB charged the defendant with three counts of intentionally using force without police necessity, rising to the level of assault in the second degree, in violation of the NYPD’s Patrol Guide. * * *

… [T]he CCRB moved herein to unseal the record of this criminal action … in order to conduct its disciplinary trial … . * * *

Although the New York City Charter authorizes the CCRB to compel the attendance of witnesses and to require the production of such records and other materials as are necessary for its investigations of police misconduct, and further requires the NYPD, inter alia, to provide records and other materials that are necessary for the CCRB’s investigations, the Charter specifically exempts from such disclosure “such records or materials that cannot be disclosed by law” (NY City Charter § 440[d][1]). As such, it cannot be said that the CCRB has been given a specific grant of power that would allow it to access the sealed records … . People v Isaacs, 2025 NY Slip Op 01818, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: The NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board cannon unseal the record of the criminal prosecution of a police officer which resulted in an acquittal.

 

,

HERE THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT HAD ORDERED A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL RECORD WAS WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING WAS PROPERLY DONE AND AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; THE DISSENT TOOK ISSUE WITH NATURE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming defendant’s conviction over a dissent, determined the reconstruction hearing compelled by the incomplete original record was properly done. The dissent disagreed:

We … reserved decision … and remitted the matter to County Court “to conduct a reconstruction hearing with respect to the missing and irregular transcripts” … .

Upon remittal, the court conducted a reconstruction hearing during which it heard the testimony of the trial judge and his confidential law clerk, the trial prosecutor, defendant’s former attorneys, a court clerk, and a county clerk. The court also admitted in evidence the trial judge’s notes; the court’s voir dire challenge sheet; the trial prosecutor’s notes on the jury charge and his copy of the verdict sheet; the court clerk’s minutes, exhibit list, and witness list; the county clerk’s case summary; and various court exhibits from the trial. Based on the record of the reconstruction hearing and the original record, we now affirm.

From the dissent:

Upon remittal, the court convened a reconstruction hearing without expressly delineating the missing and irregular transcripts to be reconstructed. Instead, the court heard the testimony of witnesses offered by the People and closed the hearing without determining whether the evidence submitted was sufficient to reconstruct a record that would permit defendant to review “whether genuine appealable and reviewable [trial] issues do or do not exist” … . That was error. Although the reconstruction required by the substantial irregularities in this trial transcript was considerably broader than the discrete issues for which reconstruction is more frequently directed … , the intent of our prior decision was for the court to make a determination whether the missing and irregular transcripts were sufficiently reconstructed, not merely to assist in the marshaling of evidence from which this Court could reconstruct the trial record behind closed doors … . People v Meyers, 2025 NY Slip Op 01762, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the issues raised, and the procedures to be followed, when the original record is too incomplete to allow an appellate review.

 

,

IN THIS STRANGULATION CASE, A POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY ABOUT UNRELATED ALLEGED STRANGULATIONS INVOLVING OTHER COMPLAINANT’S DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s strangulation conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the admission of the testimony of a police officer describing unrelated allegations of strangulation by other complainants deprived defendant of a fair trial:

… County Court erred in admitting in evidence testimony from a police officer who responded to the scene regarding his observations of other, unnamed complainants in prior, unspecified cases. The officer was permitted to testify that he had taken photographs “once or twice” of complainants who had “alleged strangulations,” and that he could not recall having observed bruises on those other complainants. The officer’s testimony was used by the People in order to explain that the lack of marks on the neck of the victim in the present case did not mean that defendant did not strangle her. Indeed, during closing argument the People invited the jury to “recall the testimony of [the officer], that he did not observe any signs of bruising on [the victim’s] neck. You’ll also recall that he has been to other strangulations and investigated those, and he didn’t find any injuries there either.” We conclude that the officer’s testimony regarding prior, unrelated cases is entirely irrelevant to the instant case, and that it was error to admit that “irrelevant and highly prejudicial testimony” … . People v Iqbal, 2025 NY Slip Op 01746, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Here a police officer’s vague testimony about unrelated allegations of strangulation involving complainants other than the victim in this strangulation case deprived defendant of a fair trial.

 

,

PRIVATE MESSAGES SENT BY THE JUVENILE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A “TERRORISTIC THREAT” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the messages sent by the juvenile did not meet the criteria for a terroristic threat:

… [A] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when “with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population . . . [they] threaten[ ] to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense and thereby cause[ ] a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense” (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Here, petitioner presented testimony that respondent sent private messages to another student in a different school district that respondent was planning to commit a mass shooting to end bullying in his school. There was no evidence that those threats were made to anyone other than the student or that respondent requested that the student relay the threats to others. “A private conversation between immature teenage friends, without more, does not establish the element of intent to intimidate a civilian population” … . Matter of Jose M.F. (Seneca County Presentment Agency), 2025 NY Slip Op 01734, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Threatening to commit a mass shooting to end school bullying in a private message to another student does not satisfy the criteria for a “terroristic threat.”

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE SENTENCING COURT IN 2016 DID NOT USE DEFENDANT’S 2006 CONVICTION TO ENHANCE HIS SENTENCE DID NOT REQUIRE THE SORA COURT TO IGNORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WHICH WAS NEVER DIRECTLY ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS NEVER VACATED; THEREFORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY RELIED UPON BY THE SORA COURT TO ASSESS DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE RISK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined the fact that the resentencing court in 2016 found defendant’s 2006 conviction by guilty plea “constitutionally infirm” for purposes of sentencing did not require the SORA court to ignore the 2006 conviction. Defendant had never directly attacked the constitutionality of the 2006 conviction:

Defendant’s reliance on the resentencing court’s collateral determination that his 2006 conviction cannot be used as a predicate to impose an enhanced sentence is misplaced. As the resentencing court explained, it lacked authority to vacate the 2006 conviction and instead properly stressed that its determination governed only the question of whether the People could use the conviction to establish defendant’s status as a second child sexual assault felony offender for purposes of sentencing. Furthermore, at the resentencing hearing, defendant bore the burden of offering substantial evidence that the 2006 conviction is constitutionally infirm … . If defendant directly challenged the conviction’s constitutionality, however, he would face a higher burden of proof … . No court has determined that defendant’s 2006 conviction is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid under that more demanding standard. Nor have the People had an opportunity to be heard in opposition to defendant’s attempt to make such a showing. Against this backdrop, it is logical for the Guidelines to require an offender with a prior felony sex offense conviction to satisfy the higher evidentiary burden that they must meet to vacate or reverse that conviction, if they wish to avoid the override’s application.

Given that defendant failed to pursue any procedural pathway to vacate the 2006 conviction, we see no reason to depart from the Guidelines’ text stating that the override is triggered if “[t]he offender has a prior felony conviction for a sex crime” (Guidelines, override 1). We therefore apply the Guidelines and hold that the override was properly implemented … . People v Moss, 2025 NY Slip Op 01673, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: The fact that a sentencing court found a prior conviction “constitutionally infirm” such that the conviction was not used to enhance defendant’s sentence did not require that the SORA court ignore the prior conviction. The SORA court properly relied upon the prior conviction here.

 

,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S DRIVING-RELATED RECKLESS-ENDANGERMENT-FIRST-DEGREE CONVICTION STEMMING FROM HIS STRIKING SEVERAL CARS, CAUSING ONE TO FLIP, AND CRASHING INTO A HOUSE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT THE “DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE” ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department affirmed defendant reckless endangerment first degree conviction over a two-justice dissent which argued the evidence did not support the “depraved indifference” element of the offense:

From the dissent:

As the majority details, on the morning of June 27, 2018, defendant was driving his vehicle in the Town of Colonie, Albany County when he collided with several vehicles — causing one to flip over — before hitting a curb and crashing into the foundation of a house. We acknowledge that the People were able to rely on the circumstantial evidence surrounding defendant’s conduct to establish that he acted with the requisite mens rea of depraved indifference to human life … . Nevertheless, in reviewing these particular circumstances, we believe there is insufficient evidence to show that he was aware of, appreciated and disregarded the risks caused by his behavior (see id.). It is uncontroverted that defendant was driving recklessly and that, in doing so, he caused significant property damage as well as various degrees of injury to the victims. However, throughout this ordeal, which lasted less than five minutes and spanned less than half a mile, defendant was not driving well in excess of the posted speed limit, and there is no evidence that he ever drove against oncoming traffic or failed to obey traffic lights … . Even viewing the particular circumstances here in the light most favorable to the People, we do not believe that this case presents one of the rare circumstances where “the mens rea of depraved indifference . . . [is] established by risky behavior alone” … . People v Bender, 2025 NY Slip Op 01678, Third Dept 3-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into the proof necessary for the “depraved indifference” element of reckless endangerment first degree in context of reckless driving.​

 

, ,

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, DESPITE THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR MOTION WHICH WAS BASED ON THE SAME GROUND, I.E., DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHEN DEFENDANT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the defendant’s second motion to vacate his murder conviction (by guilty plea) based on his attorney’s erroneously informing him he would be eligible for parole haff-way through the 15-year sentence required a hearing. Defendant had made a prior motion on the same ground which was denied by another judge. The Third Department noted that ordinarily the prior motion would preclude the instant motion, but irregularities in the prior order denying the motion and the facts asserted in support of the instant motion justified giving the defendant a second chance:

… [T]he Legislature anticipated there would be times when it would be appropriate to reconsider issues previously decided on the merits (see CPL 440.10 [3] …). Doubtless those times should be rare; but, in our view, this is one of them.

Critically, the instant motion includes witness affidavits affirming that counsel assured defendant that he would be eligible for parole review as early as halfway through his minimum 15-year term of imprisonment (see CPL 440.30 [1] [a]; compare CPL 440.30 [4] [d]). Also attached is correspondence between defendant and counsel from December 2020. In one letter, defendant asks why counsel advised him that he would be eligible for early parole; counsel’s response does not address defendant’s question. Given defendant’s submissions, plus his relatively young age and inexperience with the criminal justice system at the time of his guilty plea, along with the irregularities in the June 2020 order, summary denial of defendant’s motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Accordingly, in the exercise of our broad authority to substitute our discretion for that of County Court … , we set aside the procedural bars to relief on the issue of counsel’s alleged erroneous parole advice and remit the matter for a hearing … . People v Phelps, 2025 NY Slip Op 01680, Third Dept 3-20-25

Practice Point: Here irregularities in the order denying defendant’s first motion to vacate his conviction and the facts presented in support of defendant’s second motion on the same ground justified consideration of the second motion.​

 

, ,

A JUROR, AN ATTORNEY, ALLEGEDLY TOLD THE OTHER JURORS THAT THE “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT” STANDARD COULD BE DISREGARDED; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A “JUROR MISCONDUCT” HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT (FIIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, holding the matter in abeyance, determined the allegations that a juror, A.H., an attorney, told the other jurors the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard did not apply to everything in the case necessitated an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict:​​

Some of the alleged conduct of juror A.H., an attorney, described in the supporting affidavits of two jurors, was an emphatic expression of the juror’s thoughts, his strong belief in defendant’s guilt, his understanding of the court’s instructions, his personal antipathy to the defendant, and, to the extent it was incorrect, his understanding of the law, none of which constitutes juror misconduct under CPL 330.30(2) … . However, the affidavit of one juror (E.A.) affirmed that A.H. “told us that we did not have to apply the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for everything in the case.” The other juror (S.D.) affirmed that A.H. averred, without any stated exception, “that the proof did not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Considering these attestations regarding A.H.’s alleged direction to the jury members to disregard the court’s instruction concerning the burden of proof, defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion to set aside the verdict. We hold the appeal in abeyance for that purpose. People v Hernandez, 2025 NY Slip Op 01589, Ct App 3-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into what is, and what is not, juror-misconduct, here in the context of a juror, an attorney, telling the other jurors the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard may be disregarded.

 

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