You are here: / Criminal Law
,

JUDGE CONDUCTED EXCESSIVE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES, NEW TRIAL WITH A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department ordered a new trial because the judge conducted excessive questioning of trial witnesses:

… [T]here must be a new trial, before a different justice, because the Supreme Court conducted excessive and prejudicial questioning of trial witnesses. Although defense counsel did not object to most instances of judicial interference, we reach this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a]…). “While neither the nature of our adversary system nor the constitutional requirement of a fair trial preclude a trial court from assuming an active role in the truth-seeking process,' the court's discretion in this area is not unfettered” … . The principle restraining the court's discretion is that a trial judge's “function is to protect the record, not to make it” … . Indeed, when the trial judge interjects often and indulges in an extended questioning of witnesses, even where those questions would be proper if they came from trial counsel, the trial judge's participation presents significant risks of prejudicial unfairness … . Accordingly, while a trial judge may intervene in a trial to clarify confusing testimony and facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial, the court may not take on “the function or appearance of an advocate” … .

Here, the Supreme Court interjected itself into the questioning of multiple witnesses, elicited step-by-step details about how the defendant was identified by witnesses as a suspect, and generally created the impression that it was an advocate for the People. Under the circumstances, the court's improper interference deprived the defendant of a fair trial, and a new trial before a different justice is warranted … . People v Sookdeo, 2018 NY Slip Op 06040, Second Dept 9-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE CONDUCTED EXCESSIVE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES, NEW TRIAL WITH A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE CONDUCTED EXCESSIVE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES, NEW TRIAL WITH A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that, although the DNA evidence presented by a criminalist was in part testimonial, it was properly admitted:

At trial, the Supreme Court admitted DNA profiles and reports, as well as the testimony of an expert in DNA analysis, pertaining to the five victims and the defendant. The expert, Craig O'Connor, testified that he had a Ph.D. in genetics and laboratory sciences, and he was a criminalist level III at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. O'Connor testified that he was not the original criminalist on all of the individual cases. The other two analysts who worked on the cases “resigned in previous years to pursue other endeavors.” With regard to the case files that he took over from the analysts who resigned, O'Connor testified that he became the custodian of the case files and, in doing so, he “was required to review them all and look at all the paperwork and the reports and everything.” Moreover, O'Connor testified that he would “take all of the results and do the analysis and interpretations,” and he “review[ed] all the facts and all the data contained in all of the files.” When the prosecutor asked O'Connor if he had “review[ed] th[e] data and draw[n] [his] own independent conclusions,” O'Connor responded, “Yes, I reviewed the results that were obtained and also the reports, yes.” * * *

Here, the DNA evidence is, at least in part, testimonial … . However, O'Connor's testimony regarding his review and analysis of all of the case files indicated that he independently analyzed the raw data, as opposed to functioning as ” a conduit for the conclusions of others'” … . Moreover, unlike in other cases, the record here demonstrates that, to the extent that O'Connor was not the original criminalist assigned to any of the individual cases, the original criminalists had resigned and, thus, were unavailable … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly admitted the DNA profiles and reports and O'Connor's testimony. People v Pascall, 2018 NY Slip Op 06037, Second Dept 9-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY (ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONFRONTATION, RIGHT TO  (ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

POST-JUDGMENT MOTION TO VACATE A SENTENCE IMPOSED UNDER AN INCORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY-DESIGNATION THAT WAS LESS SEVERE THAN THE SENTENCE REQUIRED BY THE CORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY DESIGNATION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant could not, in a post-judgment motion, contest a predicate-felony-based sentence that resulted in a less severe sentence than the correct predicate-felony-designation would have required. Courts have previously held appeals on this ground could not be brought. The First Department applied the same logic to defendant's post-judgment motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 440.20:

… 21 years later, defendant claims that he was unlawfully sentenced as a second felony offender, when he should have been sentenced as a second violent felony offender. His argument is that the court erred in his favor by imposing a lesser predicate felony adjudication than the one required by his prior record. It is apparent that defendant seeks a resentencing in order to “to upset sequentiality for purposes of determining whether the conviction . . . can serve as a predicate for multiple felony offender status” … .

As defendant was not “adversely affected” by any perceived error by the court in sentencing him, and, indeed, benefitted from the imposition of a less serious predicate status, defendant's CPL 440.20 claim must be rejected without consideration of the merits of his argument that the court erred when it pronounced sentence.(CPL 470.15[1] …).

… [C]ourts [have relied] upon CPL 470.15(1) to deny direct appeals from sentences that were equal to or shorter than the sentence the defendant would have received if the alleged error in sentence had not occurred. We hold today that CPL 470.15(1) equally bars appeals from motions which challenge such alleged sentencing errors. To do otherwise would lead to the anomalous result that a defendant could achieve a result by motion which could not be obtained on a direct appeal. People v McNeil, 2018 NY Slip Op 05970, First Dept 9-6-18

Similar issues and result in People v Francis, 2018 NY Slip Op 05971, First Dept 9-6-18.

CRIMINAL LAW (POST-JUDGMENT MOTION TO VACATE A SENTENCE IMPOSED UNDER AN INCORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY-DESIGNATION THAT WAS LESS SEVERE THAN THE SENTENCE REQUIRED BY THE CORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY DESIGNATION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, POST-JUDGMENT MOTION TO VACATE A SENTENCE IMPOSED UNDER AN INCORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY-DESIGNATION THAT WAS LESS SEVERE THAN THE SENTENCE REQUIRED BY THE CORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY DESIGNATION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT)).VACATE SENTENCE, MOTION TO (POST-JUDGMENT MOTION TO VACATE A SENTENCE IMPOSED UNDER AN INCORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY-DESIGNATION THAT WAS LESS SEVERE THAN THE SENTENCE REQUIRED BY THE CORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY DESIGNATION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/SENTENCING  (POST-JUDGMENT MOTION TO VACATE A SENTENCE IMPOSED UNDER AN INCORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY-DESIGNATION THAT WAS LESS SEVERE THAN THE SENTENCE REQUIRED BY THE CORRECT PREDICATE-FELONY DESIGNATION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

, , , ,

DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP).

The First Department, upon remittitur from the Ct. of Appeals, held that the denial of a reporter’s motion to quash a subpoena for evidence of her jailhouse interview of the defendant is not appealable:

“[N]o appeal lies from an order arising out of a criminal proceeding absent specific statutory authorization” (Matter of People v Juarez , _NY3d_, 2018 NY Slip Op 04684 [2018]), quoting People v Santos , 64 NY2d 702, 704 [1984]). As pertinent to the issue in this case, “an order determining a motion to quash a subpoena . . . issued in the course of prosecution of a criminal action, arises out of a criminal proceeding for which no direct appellate review is authorized” (id.; see CPL art 450). People v Juarez, 2018 NY Slip Op 05969, First Dept 9-6-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))

, ,

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY’S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant's motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel was properly denied. Seventeen years ago defendant pled guilty after being informed by his lawyer that he would not be subject to deportation. Although the First Department agreed that Supreme Court used the wrong standard of proof for analyzing ineffective assistance, the First Department held Supreme Court's finding that defendant's testimony at the hearing was not credible was a sufficient basis for denying the motion:

The motion court accepted defendant's “uncontested assertion” in his affirmation that his attorney told him that his guilty plea would not result in negative immigration consequences such as deportation, and found that he had thus established the first of the two necessary prongs for ineffective assistance of counsel set forth in Strickland v Washington (466 US 668, 688 [1984]), that is, that “counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” * * *

… [T]he second prong of the Strickland test [is] whether “there [was] a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”  … . …

Defendant's principal argument on appeal is that the hearing court applied the wrong evidentiary standard in applying the Strickland test. He maintains that the only relevant inquiry was whether there was a “reasonable probability” that he would have proceeded to trial had he known that his guilty plea would result in deportation proceedings. … This part of defendant's argument is meritorious … .

… The court made a specific finding that defendant, the only witness, was not credible, a determination that is entitled to “great deference” … . His lack of credibility negates any conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that he would have proceeded to trial but for his attorney's misadvice. People v Pinilla, 2018 NY Slip Op 05960, First Dept 8-30-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY'S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY'S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY'S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY'S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY'S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL WHICH HAS RESULTED IN DISMISSAL IS NOT APPEALABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined no appeal lies from an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) which has resulted in dismissal:

“It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the power of a court to declare the law only arises out of, and is limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actually controverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal. This principle, which forbids courts to pass on academic, hypothetical, moot, or otherwise abstract questions, is founded both in constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine, and in methodological strictures which inhere in the decisional process of a common-law judiciary” … .

Thus, an appeal is academic “unless an adjudication of the merits will result in immediate and practical consequences to the parties” … .

The application of these principles to the facts of this case establish that the appeal is academic. In the order appealed from, the Family Court adjourned the proceedings in contemplation of dismissal until July 18, 2017. Where a proceeding is adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, and the proceeding is not restored to the calendar and no applications by the petitioner or the child's attorney or motions by the court to restore the proceeding to the calendar are pending, “the petition is, at the expiration of the adjournment period, deemed to have been dismissed by the court in furtherance of justice” (Family Ct Act 1039[f]). Thus, the petition has been dismissed, by operation of law and in the furtherance of justice… . Given that the appellants have received the exact relief they seek, any determination we might make in this matter would have no direct effect on the rights of the parties before us … . Matter of Priciliyana C. (Jacklyn L.), 2018 NY Slip Op 05927, Second Dept 8-29-18

APPEALS (ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL WHICH HAS RESULTED IN DISMISSAL IS NOT APPEALABLE (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL WHICH HAS RESULTED IN DISMISSAL IS NOT APPEALABLE (SECOND DEPT))/FAMILY LAW (APPEALS, ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL WHICH HAS RESULTED IN DISMISSAL IS NOT APPEALABLE (SECOND DEPT))/ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD, ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL WHICH HAS RESULTED IN DISMISSAL IS NOT APPEALABLE (SECOND DEPT))

,

RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the questioning of defendant, without repeating the Miranda warnings, was appropriate. Defendant had not unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent the night before and the questioning continued the next morning. The court noted that the admission of evidence of prior uncharged crime was not error because the evidence completed the narrative. The court further noted that defendant should have been allowed to interview a prosecution witness without the presence of a prosecutor or a detective. The error was deemed harmless however:

The defendant's morning statement was properly admitted at trial. Had the defendant unequivocally and unqualifiedly invoked her right to remain silent the previous evening, the request would have had to be scrupulously honored … , and further interrogation would have had to cease… . Under such circumstances, further inquiry can be made, but only if a significant period of time has passed and the police reiterate the requisite warnings … . However, since the defendant in this case had not unequivocally and unqualifiedly invoked her right to remain silent … and remained in continuous custody in the interim, police and prosecutors were free to resume their questioning of the defendant within a reasonable time, and to do so without repeating the Miranda warnings … . The further questioning at issue here was within a reasonable time under this Court's precedent … . People v Wisdom, 2018 NY Slip Op 05950, Second Dept 8-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT))/MIRANDA  (RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT))/MOLINEUX (CRIMINAL LAW, RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN ‘EXCESSIVE SENTENCE’ APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that Criminal Procedure Law 450.10(1), which purports to prohibit an “excessive sentence” appeal after a guilty plea, is unconstitutional in that it limits the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division, in violation of the NYS Constitution. But the court went on to find that defendant's waiver of appeal was valid and precluded contesting his sentence:

CPL 450.10(1) provides a criminal defendant with the right to appeal a judgment “unless the appeal is based solely upon the ground that a sentence was harsh or excessive when such sentence was predicated upon entry of a plea of guilty and the sentence imposed did not exceed that which was agreed to by the defendant as a condition of the plea.” As the People acknowledge, the Court of Appeals has held that this provision is unconstitutional because “it imposes a limitation or condition on the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division of Supreme Court in contravention of NY Constitution, article VI, § 4(k)” … . * * *

Here, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant understood that the appeal waiver was separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty and that the defendant was voluntarily relinquishing that right in consideration for the promised sentence … . Furthermore, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant received an explanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right … . People v Swen, 2018 NY Slip Op 05949, Second Dept 8-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))/SENTENCING (APPEALS, CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, reversed defendant's convictions for reckless endangerment and reckless assault. Defendant had picked up a gun that his friend (Morales) had brought to his house. In handling the gun it went off injuring his friend's leg. His friend was asleep when the gun fired. Defendant immediately said he was sorry, put the gun in a garbage can and accompanied his friend to the hospital. The Second Department determined the convictions were against the weight of the evidence because there was insufficient proof that defendant acted recklessly:

… [T]he People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his conduct would cause physical injury to another person. The People did not introduce evidence that the defendant was familiar with weapons, or the particular gun. Indeed, the gun was brought to the defendant's home by Morales, and it is undisputed that the gun discharged as the defendant handled it out of curiosity. There was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the defendant knew the gun was loaded with live ammunition, or even knew how the particular gun operated. There was no evidence introduced that the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded the risk that the gun might misfire … . Indeed, Morales testified that the defendant appeared “scared” when the gun discharged and that the defendant immediately stated that he was “sorry.” The defendant attempted to dispose of the gun and helped the victim get medical care. Contrary to the People's contention, there was no testimony that the defendant was pointing the gun at Morales when it discharged, and there was no evidence introduced establishing that the only way the pellets could have struck Morales's leg was by pointing the gun directly at Morales. People v Marin, 2018 NY Slip Op 05942, Second Dept 8-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/RECKLESSNESS (CRIMINAL LAW, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

,

POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant's motion to suppress a handgun and statements should not have been granted in this street stop case. The Second Department found that the officer who stopped the defendant properly responded to an escalating situation which culminated in the defendant's flight and abandonment of a backpack containing the handgun:

There is no dispute that upon receiving a radio transmission of an anonymous tip that a man of a specific description wearing a black backpack and possessing a gun was traveling on the B6 bus toward Canarsie, the responding police officer had a common-law right of inquiry upon encountering the defendant exiting that bus and matching the description … . The responding officer testified at the suppression hearing that he approached the defendant and asked something to the effect of, “Hey, what's up, man, you know, you got a second for the police?” The defendant's eyes widened, he appeared visibly nervous, and he started to back up. The defendant then thrust his right hand in his right pants pocket and refused to comply with the officer's command to remove it. These actions by the defendant escalated the encounter to justify the officer drawing his weapon, placing it across his own chest in a “depressed position,” and attempting to forcibly remove the defendant's hand from his pocket as a self-protective measure … . Further, the defendant's subsequent flight, coupled with all of the other indicia of criminality, justified the police pursuit …  and, ultimately, the recovery of a semi-automatic handgun from the defendant's backpack, which he abandoned in a nearby bodega … . People v King, 2018 NY Slip Op 05941, Second Dept 8-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE  (POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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