You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in the interest of justice, reversed the defendant's murder conviction because (1) the trial judge failed to give the accomplice in fact jury instruction, (2) prosecutorial misconduct and (3) ineffective assistance in failing to object to the prosecutor's statements and failure to request the accomplice instruction:

During her summation, the prosecutor stated that the “defendant's DNA was on the safety of that gun,” and that “the science finds him guilty.” The prosecutor further stated that “[t]he DNA has spoken,” and that “[t]he defendant's DNA, by being on that safety without even taking into account [the witness's] testimony, makes him guilty.” This was an overstatement and misrepresentation of the statistical comparison testified to by the People's expert who performed the DNA analysis of the swab taken from the safety of the murder weapon. “While the prosecutor was entitled to fair comments on the DNA evidence available in this case, she was not entitled to present the results in a manner that was contrary to the evidence and the science” … . “In light of the powerful influence of DNA evidence on juries, the opportunity for juror confusion regarding the limited probative value of the DNA methodology employed in this case, and the qualified nature of the test results,” the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when she misrepresented and overstated the probative value of the DNA evidence by telling the jury that the defendant's DNA was on the safety of the murder weapon (id. at 771). As a result, the defendant was deprived of his right to a fair trial … .

The prosecutor also engaged in misconduct during her summation when she stated that she met with the witness on several occasions, and during those times, “he did not know that his DNA was on the trigger or the trigger guard or anywhere on that weapon,” and she “did not tell him that the DNA, his DNA was on that gun.” The prosecutor's summation also included the following statements: “But [the witness] told me in talking about this case in detail, he told me what he did”; “He told me that he held that firearm”; “Exactly how he told you on this stand when the defendant dropped it, . . . he picked it up and quickly threw it into a black bag so his girlfriend wouldn't see”; and “He's telling me and he doesn't even know what I have. Honesty. Straightforward about what happened.” These statements by the prosecutor improperly encouraged inferences of guilt based on facts not in evidence, improperly injected her own credibility into the trial, and improperly vouched for the credibility of a witness for the People … .

We further find that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, inter alia, due to defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's improper comments in summation … and defense counsel's failure to request an accomplice corroboration charge … . People v Powell, 2018 NY Slip Op 06768, Second Dept 10-10-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT'S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT'S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT'S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT  (ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT'S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE  (ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT'S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THE WEAKNESS OF THE COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT AND THE WEAKNESS OF THE HIGH-SENSITIVITY DNA ANALYSIS REQUIRED REVERSAL UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, under a weight of the evidence analysis, reversed defendant's gang assault conviction. The Second Department noted the weakness of the complainant's testimony about the identity of the assailant and the weakness of the DNA evidence. One of the assailants removed complainant's sneaker and threw it. There was very little DNA on the sneaker and a special “high-sensitivity” analysis was used:

The complainant's sneaker was recovered six days after the incident. The DNA sample obtained from the sneaker contained only 97.9 picograms of DNA, which is less than the minimum amount of DNA material—100 picograms—needed for traditional DNA testing. Further, the DNA sample was a nondeducible mixture, meaning that it contained the DNA of two or more persons, but that the mixture could not be broken apart to determine which strings of DNA came from which person. Nevertheless, the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (hereinafter OCME) utilized “high-sensitivity” DNA analysis, a method of testing OCME developed to analyze DNA samples of less than 100 picograms. An OCME criminologist testifying at the trial admitted that in developing high-sensitivity testing, OCME “tweaked the protocols” of DNA testing. Based on the high-sensitivity testing, OCME found that the mixture was indicative of a two-person mixture. This OCME criminologist testified that the DNA profiles of the complainant and the defendant were then compared to the sample, and a forensic statistical tool (hereinafter FST) developed by OCME was used to determine the “likelihood ratio” that the defendant was one of the two contributors. The FST analysis concluded that it was 695,000 times more probable that the DNA sample originated from the defendant and an unknown unrelated person than from two unknown unrelated persons. The analysis also found that it was 133 times more likely that the DNA sample originated from the defendant and the complainant than from the complainant and an unknown unrelated person. The FST analysis of the DNA was based upon a Caucasian population, and failed to take into account the genetic history of the defendant, a member of the Hasidic population. Moreover, the likelihood ratio result was only 133, a relatively insubstantial number.

Under the circumstances of this case, including the complainant's inability to positively identify any of his attackers, the varying accounts regarding the incident, and the DNA evidence, which was less than convincing, we find that the evidence, when properly weighed, did not establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Herskovic, 2018 NY Slip Op 06763, Second Dept 10-10-18

CRIMINAL LAW (THE WEAKNESS OF THE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT AND THE WEAKNESS OF THE HIGH-SENSITIVITY DNA ANALYSIS REQUIRED REVERSAL UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, THE WEAKNESS OF THE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT AND THE WEAKNESS OF THE HIGH-SENSITIVITY DNA ANALYSIS REQUIRED REVERSAL UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, THE WEAKNESS OF THE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT AND THE WEAKNESS OF THE HIGH-SENSITIVITY DNA ANALYSIS REQUIRED REVERSAL UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, THE WEAKNESS OF THE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT AND THE WEAKNESS OF THE HIGH-SENSITIVITY DNA ANALYSIS REQUIRED REVERSAL UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT))/DNA (THE WEAKNESS OF THE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT AND THE WEAKNESS OF THE HIGH-SENSITIVITY DNA ANALYSIS REQUIRED REVERSAL UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT))/HIGH-SENSITIVITY DNA ANALYSIS (THE WEAKNESS OF THE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT AND THE WEAKNESS OF THE HIGH-SENSITIVITY DNA ANALYSIS REQUIRED REVERSAL UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant's conviction because the trial judge did not fully advise counsel of the contents of a jury note:

We agree with defendant that the court violated the core requirements of CPL 310.30 in failing to advise counsel on the record of the contents of a substantive jury note, and thereby committed reversible error … . The record establishes that, during its deliberations, the jury sent several notes, the first two of which are germane here. The first note requested that the jury be provided with a written copy of the court's legal instructions, and the second note requested, inter alia, a rereading of all of the court's legal instructions. The record reflects that the court informed the parties that the jury had sent several notes and indicated that the jury requested a rereading of the instructions, but the court did not mention the contents of the first note. Although the record establishes that ” defense counsel was made aware of the existence of the [first] note, there is no indication that the entire contents of the note were shared with counsel' ” … . We therefore “reject the People's argument that defense counsel's awareness of the existence and the gist' of the note satisfied the court's meaningful notice obligation, or that preservation was required. Where the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note—as it is in this case—preservation is not required' . . . Moreover, . . . [i]n the absence of record proof that the trial court complied with its [meaningful notice obligation] under CPL 310.30, a mode of proceedings error occurred requiring reversal' ” … . People v Ott, 2018 NY Slip Op 06646, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY NOTES, FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO RULE ON A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION IS NOT A DENIAL, DECISION ON APPEAL RESERVED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that a failure to rule on a portion of a motion cannot be deemed a denial. Therefore the decision on appeal was reserved and the matter sent back for a ruling:

Defendant appeals from an order insofar as it failed to grant that part of his pro se motion seeking DNA testing of a rape kit and the victim's shirt and pants. The order addressed defendant's motion to the extent it sought to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, but did not address the motion to the extent it sought DNA testing pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a). Inasmuch as County Court's failure to rule on that part of defendant's motion “cannot be deemed a denial thereof” … , we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a determination whether ” there was a reasonable probability that, had th[e rape kit, shirt and pants] been tested and had the results been admitted at trial, the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant' ” … . People v Lewis, 2018 NY Slip Op 06645, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, FAILURE TO RULE ON A PORTION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION IS NOT A DENIAL, DECISION ON APPEAL RESERVED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO RULE ON A PORTION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION IS NOT A DENIAL, DECISION ON APPEAL RESERVED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT))

,

APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE APPRISED DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reserved decision and sent the matter back for a reconstruction hearing concerning whether the trial judge apprised defense counsel of the entire contents of a jury note. The court reporter submitted an affidavit indicating the transcript is incomplete and the judge's remarks about the jury note were inadvertently omitted:

… [T]he People stipulated to the record without seeking to amend the transcript (see CPLR 5525 [c] [1]; see also 22 NYCRR former 1000.4 [a] [1] [ii]), rely upon an affidavit that does not constitute a part of the underlying prosecution … , and have not submitted a supplemental transcript certified by the court reporter that would fall within the parties' stipulation to submit the trial transcripts to this Court … . It is well established, however, that “[p]arties to an appeal are entitled to have that record show the facts as they really happened at trial, and should not be prejudiced by an error or omission of the stenographer”… . Thus, under the circumstances of this case, we take judicial notice of our own records, i.e., the court reporter's affidavit submitted in opposition to defendant's motion for a writ of error coram nobis … .

In her affidavit, the court reporter averred that, although the transcript indicates that the court stated that the jury requested readbacks of the testimony of only four witnesses, the transcript inadvertently omits from the court's recitation of the note the jury's request for a readback of the testimony of a fifth witness—the medical examiner. The court reporter's affidavit thus indicates that a stenographic error may have resulted in a transcript that does not accurately reflect whether the court read the entire content of the note verbatim in open court prior to responding to the jury. We conclude that the alleged error in the transcript of the court's on-the-record reading of the note should be subject to a reconstruction hearing because “[t]he trial judge is the final arbiter of the record' certified to the appellate courts” … . People v Timmons, 2018 NY Slip Op 06644, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE APPRISED DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE APPRISED DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (FOURTH DEPT))/RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY NOTES, APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE APPRISED DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE APPRISED DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant's guilty plea, determine defendant's waiver of appeal was invalid and defendant was not informed of the period of post-release supervision:

We agree with defendant that his purported waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. “County Court failed to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal at the time of the plea” … . Moreover, “the written waiver of the right to appeal that [defendant] signed as part of the treatment court contract,' [a day] after he pleaded guilty, does not constitute a valid waiver of the right to appeal” …

Furthermore, we agree with defendant that the court failed to fulfill its obligation to advise him, at the time of the plea, that the sentences imposed upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree would include periods of postrelease supervision … . People v Teta, 2018 NY Slip Op 06674, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (FOURTH DEPT))/POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (FOURTH DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, VACATION OF (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE STRANGERS, RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED BY 20 POINTS MAKING DEFENDANT A PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was insufficient evidence the defendant and the 16-year-old victim and the 24-year-old were strangers. The risk assessment was therefore reduced by 20 points:

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in assessing him 20 points under risk factor 7, which applies when, insofar as relevant here, the offender's conduct ” was directed at a stranger or a person with whom a relationship had been established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimization' “… . The 24-year-old defendant and the 16-year-old victim met while working at a local Red Cross; the two exchanged contact information and, months later, communicated through social media and by telephone before any sexual contact occurred. Under these circumstances, the People failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant and the victim were strangers at the time of the crime … . Moreover, the People “presented no evidence that defendant . . . targeted the victim for the primary purpose of victimizing her” … .

Without the 20 points assessed under risk factor 7, defendant is a presumptive level one sex offender … . People v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 06666, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE STRANGERS, RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED BY 20 POINTS MAKING DEFENDANT A PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE STRANGERS, RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED BY 20 POINTS MAKING DEFENDANT A PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))

SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE A CRIME CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant's conviction by guilty plea, determined that the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective:

A defendant may waive indictment and consent to be prosecuted by a superior court information (see CPL 195.20…). As relevant here, “[t]he offenses named [in a superior court information] may include any offense for which the defendant was held for action of a grand jury”… , i.e., “the same crime as [charged in] the felony complaint or a lesser included offense of that crime”… . Inasmuch as attempted kidnapping in the second degree is not a crime charged in the felony complaint or a lesser included offense, the superior court information is jurisdictionally defective. “That defect does not require preservation, and it survives defendant's waiver of the right to appeal and his guilty plea”… . People v Bennett, 2018 NY Slip Op 06663. Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE A CRIME CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE A CRIME CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER’S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there is no mechanism in the Criminal Procedure Law for a nonparty to intervene in a criminal case. Here a reporter sought information about the jurors who were deliberating a murder case. The court further found that the requirements for a CPLR 1013, 1014 motion to intervene were not met here:

… [I]t is well established that “[t]he Criminal Procedure Law provides no mechanism for a nonparty to intervene or be joined in a criminal case” … . Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that the mechanism for intervening in an action set forth in the Civil Practice Law and Rules authorizes such an intervention in a criminal case (see CPLR 1013), we note that there is a statutory requirement that “[a] motion to intervene shall be accompanied by a proposed pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought” (CPLR 1014), and thus the court here would have “had no power to grant . . . leave to intervene” without a proposed pleading from the intervenors … . Consequently, in each appeal we must vacate the order [which denied the motion to intervene on other grounds] and dismiss the appeal. People v Conley, 2018 NY Slip Op 06647, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO INTERVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO INTEREVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 1013, 1014  (MOTION TO INTERVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))/INTERVENE, MOTION TO (THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))/REPORTERS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO INTERVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))NEWSPAPERS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO INTERVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))/PRESS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO INTERVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDIA (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO INTERVENE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR A REPORTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPLR MOTION TO INTERVENE WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT’S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel when counsel conceded that defendant had a dangerous mental disorder requiring civil confinement. There was no strategic justification for waiving a CPL 330.20 hearing to determine which treatment/confinement track was appropriate for defendant:

… [A]fter a court accepts a not responsible plea, it must issue an examination order for the defendant to be examined by two qualified psychiatric examiners (CPL 330.20[2]), who must submit to the court a report of their findings and evaluation regarding defendant's mental condition (CPL 330.20[5]).

Critical to this procedure is the requirement that the court conduct an initial hearing within 10 days after receipt of the psychiatric examination reports, in order to classify the defendant as “track one,” “track two,” or “track three” based on the defendant's mental condition (CPL 330.20[6]…).

The track is significant because it determines the level of the defendant's confinement and treatment. Track one is based on a finding of “dangerous mental disorder,” meaning that the defendant suffers from a “mental illness,” and that “because of such condition he currently constitutes a physical danger to himself or others” (CPL 330.20[1][c]; see Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03[20] [defining “mental illness”]). Track two is based on a finding of “mentally ill,” without a dangerous mental disorder (CPL 330.20[1][d]). Track three is based on a finding of not mentally ill (CPL 330.20[7]).

“The track designation places more dangerous acquittees under the purview of the Criminal Procedure Law, while less dangerous, though still mentally ill, acquittees are committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health and come under the supervision of the Mental Hygiene Law”… . Thus, track designation is “vitally important in determining the level of judicial and prosecutorial involvement in future decisions about an acquittee's confinement, transfer and release” … . People v Darryl T., 2018 NY Slip Op 06634, First Dept 10-4-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20  (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST 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