You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined the detective's testimony that the complainant picked the defendant out of a lineup constituted inadmissible bolstering. The issue was reviewed in the interest of justice (error not preserved);

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from a detective stating that he arrested the defendant after the defendant was identified in a lineup by the complainant. However, we nevertheless review this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a]…). The detective's testimony implicitly bolstered the complainant's testimony by providing official confirmation of the complainant's identification of the defendant … . A violation of the rule against bolstering may not be overlooked except where the evidence of identity is so strong that there is no serious issue upon that point … . Here, the evidence that the defendant committed the crime was not so overwhelming as to render the error harmless. This error was compounded by improper comments made during the People's summation regarding the complainant's identification of the defendant as the robber. People v Ramirez, 2018 NY Slip Op 06120, Second Dept 9-19-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/LINEUPS (CRIMINAL LAW, DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/BOLSTERING (CRIMINAL LAW, LINEUPS, DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT’S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant juvenile offender could not move to suppress his presentence report in subsequent Department of Homeland Security proceedings:

The defendant, an immigrant from Bangladesh, was adjudicated a youthful offender. After completing his sentence, the defendant was detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security (hereinafter the DHS), which, in reliance on the defendant's presentence report, argued that the defendant should be denied a bond due to his youthful offender adjudication. Thereafter, the defendant moved before the Supreme Court in the subject criminal proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3103 for a protective order “enjoining the [DHS's] use” of his presentence report, arguing that it is a confidential record under CPL 720.35(2), which the DHS had improperly obtained. In an order dated June 6, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. The defendant appeals.

CPLR 3103 ” confers broad discretion upon a court to fashion appropriate remedies' to prevent the abuse of disclosure devices” … . Pursuant to CPLR 3103(c), “[i]f any disclosure under this article has been improperly or irregularly obtained so that a substantial right of a party is prejudiced, the court, on motion, may make an appropriate order, including an order that the information be suppressed” … . Here, since the DHS did not obtain the presentence report in the course of any disclosure process under CPLR Article 31, there is no basis for the issuance of a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103(c). Moreover, since “[c]ontrol over immigration and naturalization is entrusted exclusively to the Federal Government, and a State has no power to interfere” … , the Supreme Court lacked the power to suppress the presentence report in immigration proceedings. People v Saqline K., 2018 NY Slip Op 06115, Second Dept 9-19-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (IMMIGRATION LAW, SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))CIVIL PROCEDURE (IMMIGRATION LAW, (SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))PRESENTENCE REPORT (IMMIGRATION LAW, SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))

,

STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, with a concurring memorandum, determined that defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized from his person and his statement should have been granted in this street stop case. The majority reversed under a DeBour analysis. The concurring memorandum, although agreeing with the DeBour analysis, would have reversed because the People did not demonstrate the legality of the police conduct at the suppression hearing:

This encounter began as a level two intrusion, with the officer, while seated in the vehicle, stating “police” and asking the defendant to stop, then exiting his vehicle, walking onto the sidewalk, again stating “police” and asking the defendant to stop. Thereafter, the officer's pursuit of the defendant, by getting “closer to the defendant picking up with his pace,” constituted a level three intrusion under De Bour, requiring a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in a felony or misdemeanor … . However, the circumstances, such as that the defendant had a nondescript bulge in his right jacket pocket, was leaning to the right side, and walked away from the officer without complying with the officer's requests for him to stop, did not support a reasonable suspicion of particularized criminal action. After all, “a bulging jacket pocket is hardly indicative of criminality. As [the Court of Appeals has] recognized, a pocket bulge, unlike a waistband bulge, could be caused by any number of innocuous objects'” (People v Holmes, 81 NY2d at 1058, quoting People v De Bour, 40 NY2d at 221), and “an individual has a right to be let alone' and refuse to respond to police inquiry” … . Since this level three intrusion was not justified, it cannot be validated by the officer's subsequent observation of the firearm … .

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's subsequent statement to law enforcement officers must be suppressed as the product of the unlawful police conduct … . People v Jones, 2018 NY Slip Op 06114, Second Dept 9-19-18

CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE  (STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO   (STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/DE BOUR (STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT STATING THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WITH NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department remitted the matter for consideration of defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. His attorney told the judge there was no basis for the motion which adversely affected defendant's right to counsel:

…[T]he defendant pleaded guilty to tampering with physical evidence. Thereafter, he moved pro se to withdraw his plea of guilty. When the matter came on for sentencing, the defendant advised the County Court that he wanted to withdraw his plea. His attorney stated that there was no basis for the defendant to withdraw his plea, and the court proceeded to impose sentence. The defendant's right to counsel was adversely affected when his attorney took a position adverse to that of the defendant. The court should have appointed new counsel to represent the defendant with respect to the motion to withdraw his plea of guilty … . People v Falls, 2018 NY Slip Op 06110, Second Dept 9-19-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT STATING THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WITH NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT STATING THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WITH NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL  (DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT STATING THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WITH NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))

SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS FIVE YEARS WHEN IT ACTUALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS, MATTER SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, sent the case back for resentencing because it appeared the sentencing judge was under the misimpression the minimum period of post release supervision (PRS) was five years, when the minimum was two and a half years:

At the time of defendant's plea, the court, counsel, and the prosecution believed defendant was a predicate felony offender. The plea offer contained the mandatory five-year term of PRS for a second felony offender convicted of a first violent felony offense (see Penal Law §§ 70.00[6], 70.45[2][f]). At sentencing, however, when defense counsel stated that defendant was not, in fact, a predicate felon, the sentencing court asked whether defendant's status as a first felony offender “change[d] our circumstances.” Defense counsel responded, “I think the minimum is still three and a half.” The court later asked, “Is there any reason that I should not impose the sentence of three-and- one-half years plus five years of post-release supervision?” Defense counsel replied, “Even if it was not quote unquote agreed upon, that would have been the best Your Honor could have given.” As indicated, the defense counsel's statement was correct as to the prison term, but not as to the period of PRS. People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 06055, First Dept 9-13-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS FIVE YEARS WHEN IT ACTUALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS, MATTER SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT))/POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS)  (SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS FIVE YEARS WHEN IT ACTUALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS, MATTER SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

WHETHER THE POLICE RECEIVED VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO ENTER AN APARTMENT IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT REVIEW, TWO CONCURRING OPINIONS DEALT WITH AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT RAISED, WHETHER THE POLICE WENT TO THE APARTMENT INTENDING TO MAKE A WARRANTLESS ARREST (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over two concurring opinions, determined that it could not review whether the police received voluntary consent to enter an apartment because it is a mixed question of law and fact and there is support in the record for the motion court's ruling. The concurring opinions dealt with an issue which was not raised below or on appeal—whether the police went to the apartment with the intent to make a warrantless arrest:

The determination as to whether police received voluntary consent to enter the apartment is a mixed question of law and fact … . “Although the voluntariness of the consent is open to dispute, our power to review affirmed findings of fact is limited. Since the finding of the trial court is supported by the record, we are precluded from upsetting it”… . As our concurring colleagues acknowledge, defendant did not contend below and does not contend on this appeal that his arrest was unlawful because the police went to his home with the intent of making a warrantless arrest. People v Xochimitl, 2018 NY Slip Op 06053, CtApp 9-13-18

CRIMINAL LAW (WHETHER THE POLICE RECEIVED VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO ENTER AN APARTMENT IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT REVIEW, TWO CONCURRING OPINIONS DEALT WITH AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT RAISED, WHETHER THE POLICE WENT TO THE APARTMENT INTENDING TO MAKE A WARRANTLESS ARREST (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, WHETHER THE POLICE RECEIVED VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO ENTER AN APARTMENT IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT REVIEW, TWO CONCURRING OPINIONS DEALT WITH AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT RAISED, WHETHER THE POLICE WENT TO THE APARTMENT INTENDING TO MAKE A WARRANTLESS ARREST (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WHETHER THE POLICE RECEIVED VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO ENTER AN APARTMENT IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT REVIEW, TWO CONCURRING OPINIONS DEALT WITH AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT RAISED, WHETHER THE POLICE WENT TO THE APARTMENT INTENDING TO MAKE A WARRANTLESS ARREST (CT APP))/MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT (APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, WHETHER THE POLICE RECEIVED VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO ENTER AN APARTMENT IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT REVIEW, TWO CONCURRING OPINIONS DEALT WITH AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT RAISED, WHETHER THE POLICE WENT TO THE APARTMENT INTENDING TO MAKE A WARRANTLESS ARREST (CT APP))

, ,

APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE CORRECT CRITERIA IN ITS WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DESPITE CITING SEVERAL DECISIONS THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the Appellate Division applied the correct analysis to its weight of the evidence review, despite the Appellate Division's citing of several decisions which should no longer be followed:

The Appellate Division stated the correct standard of review when it concluded that, “viewing the evidence presented at trial in a neutral light . . . , and weighing the relative probative force of the conflicting testimony and evidence, as well as the relative strength of the conflicting inferences to be drawn therefrom, and according deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony and observe their demeanor, the jury was justified in finding that the People sustained their burden of disproving defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt” (157 AD3d 107, 116, 118 [1st Dept 2017]; see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). To the extent the Appellate Division cited to certain prior decisions (see 157 AD3d at 109, citing People v Castillo, 223 AD2d 481, 481 [1st Dept 1996]; People v Bartley, 219 AD2d 566, 567 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 898 [1st Dept 1995]; People v Corporan, 169 AD2d 643, 643 [1st Dept 1991], lv denied 77 NY2d 959 [1st Dept 1991]) containing language that is inconsistent with our more recent guidance regarding weight of the evidence (see People v Delamota, 18 NY3d 107, 116-117 [2011]), those decisions should not be followed.

… .[T]he Appellate Division applied the correct standard from Romero and Bleakley, which involves a “two-step approach” wherein the court must (1) “determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable[;]” and (2) “weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony” … . People v Sanchez, 2018 NY Slip Op 06052, CtApp 9-13-18

CRIMINAL LAW (APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE CORRECT CRITERIA IN ITS WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DESPITE CITING SEVERAL DECISIONS THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE CORRECT CRITERIA IN ITS WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DESPITE CITING SEVERAL DECISIONS THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE CORRECT CRITERIA IN ITS WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DESPITE CITING SEVERAL DECISIONS THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE CORRECT CRITERIA IN ITS WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DESPITE CITING SEVERAL DECISIONS THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP))

,

DEFENDANT’S LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, HIS SENTENCE ON A SEX OFFENSE WAS INTERRUPTED WHEN THE PAROLE BOARD DECLARED HIM DELINQUENT, WHEN DEFENDANT RETURNED TO STATE CUSTODY AFTER A SUBSEQUENT MURDER CONVICTION, HIS SEX OFFENSE SENTENCE RESUMED MAKING HIM SUBJECT TO SORA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant's level three sex offender adjudication should not have been vacated on the ground that defendant had completed his sex offense sentence in 1980, well before SORA went into effect in 1996. The Second Department held that defendant's sentence had been interrupted in 1979 when the Parole Board declared him delinquent. Defendant was subsequently prosecuted for murder and when defendant returned to state custody after his murder conviction in 1982, his sex offense sentence resumed:

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his rape and attempted robbery sentences were “automatically interrupted when the Parole Board declared him delinquent” on June 4, 1979 … . The defendant was not entitled to credit against those interrupted sentences for his time spent in local custody while his murder case was pending, as none of the provisions providing for such credit in Penal Law former § 70.40(3)(c) apply in this case (see Penal Law former § 70.40[3][c]…). The interruption of the defendant's rape and attempted robbery sentences that began on June 4, 1979, continued until the defendant returned “to an institution under the jurisdiction of the state department of correction,” which in this case occurred when the defendant was returned to the custody of DOCCS on January 19, 1982 (Penal Law former § 70.40[3][a]…). Upon his return to the custody of DOCCS in 1982, the defendant both commenced serving his murder sentence and resumed serving his interrupted rape and attempted robbery sentences (see Penal Law § 70.30[1]; Penal Law former § 70.40[3][a]…). For the purposes of SORA, the defendant was subject to all of these sentences during his incarceration after January 19, 1982 …. Thus, the defendant was serving his rape, attempted robbery, and murder sentences on SORA's effective date in 1996, and he is subject to SORA … . People v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 06045, Second Dept 9-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENSE REGISTRATION ACT, DEFENDANT'S LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, HIS SENTENCE ON A SEX OFFENSE WAS INTERRUPTED WHEN THE PAROLE BOARD DECLARED HIM DELINQUENT, WHEN DEFENDANT RETURNED TO STATE CUSTODY AFTER A SUBSEQUENT MURDER CONVICTION, HIS SEX OFFENSE SENTENCE RESUMED MAKING HIM SUBJECT TO SORA (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) ( DEFENDANT'S LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, HIS SENTENCE ON A SEX OFFENSE WAS INTERRUPTED WHEN THE PAROLE BOARD DECLARED HIM DELINQUENT, WHEN DEFENDANT RETURNED TO STATE CUSTODY AFTER A SUBSEQUENT MURDER CONVICTION, HIS SEX OFFENSE SENTENCE RESUMED MAKING HIM SUBJECT TO SORA (SECOND DEPT))

DENIAL OF A LATE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying a late peremptory challenge to a juror and ordered a new trial:

… [C]ounsel for codefendant Rodger Freeman stated, “There was one we missed, number eight.” The court responded, “We have eight.” In response, counsel for codefendant Rodger Freeman stated, “We don't want eight.” The court replied, “You already—you told me what the perempts are and who the selected jurors are,” and denied the request to challenge prospective juror eight. * * *

Under CPL 270.15, “the decision to entertain a belated peremptory challenge is left to the discretion of the trial court, in recognition that the voir dire process can often be time-consuming and requires practical limitations” … . Here, the delay in challenging prospective juror eight was de minimis. There was no discernable interference or undue delay caused by the defense's momentary oversight and the voir dire of the second subgroup of prospective jurors was still to be conducted. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improperly denied the request to challenge prospective juror eight … . Since a trial court's improper denial of a peremptory challenge mandates reversal, we reverse the judgment and order a new trial … . People v Viera, 2018 NY Slip Op 06043, Second Dept 9-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF A LATE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF A LATE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE (JURORS, DENIAL OF A LATE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT)

,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE WAS NOT BRADY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed the vacation of defendant's conviction by the motion court, finding that the evidence which defendant alleged had not been turned over to the defense was not Brady material:

The defendant was charged with murder in the second degree, among other crimes, in connection with the shooting death of Tracey Thomas on October 22, 1993. Thomas was shot and killed as he sat in his car outside a game room operated by the defendant, who was known as “Pike.”

The evidence at trial, which was conducted in 1998, included the testimony of two eyewitnesses who identified the defendant as the shooter. One eyewitness to the shooting, Marilyn Connor, testified that she heard a gunshot and saw a spark coming from the defendant, who was standing in front of Thomas. Connor stated that she had seen the defendant “[o]nce or twice” before. The other eyewitness, Shawn Newton, testified that the defendant exited the game room, approached Thomas's car, and shot Thomas in the chest. Newton stated that he had known the defendant “all [his] life.” * * *

The nondisclosure of the DOCCS record reflecting Newton's apparent suicide attempt did not constitute a Brady violation, inasmuch as the information contained in that record was not favorable to the defense. As set forth in the DOCCS record, Newton, who was observed in the process of tying a bed sheet around a radiator pipe, reported that he was “stressed and [did] not want to go to court in fear of [the] safety of himself and family,” and that he “fears [the defendant].” The DOCCS record further indicated that Newton was “[a]ssured that this [would] be noted and that there should be no contact between him and enemy as well as enemy's family.” Thus, the DOCCS record attributed the apparent suicide attempt to Newton's fear of the defendant and was therefore not favorable to the defense. …

Furthermore, that the prosecutor had obtained a material witness order to secure Connor's testimony did not constitute Brady material because that information was not exculpatory … . To the contrary, the record indicates that Connor's absence was due to her fear of testifying against the defendant. …

We next turn to the nondisclosure of the Damiani orders, which are orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, pursuant to which custody of an inmate, with the inmate's consent, is delivered to the police department to be interviewed by the District Attorney's Office ,,, [C]ontrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the orders did not satisfy the materiality standard. People v Spruill, 2018 NY Slip Op 06041, Second Dept 9-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (BRADY MATERIAL, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE WAS NOT BRADY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, BRADY MATERIAL,  MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE WAS NOT BRADY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT))/BRADY MATERIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE WAS NOT BRADY MATERIAL (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