You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED BY COUNSEL OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been summarily granted and remanded the matter for a hearing. The defendant alleged defense counsel was ineffective for failure to correctly inform him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The First Department offered a detailed explanation of the three criteria for granting a motion to vacate in this context on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds.

CPL 440.30 authorizes the summary granting of a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction where the moving papers allege a ground constituting a legal basis for the motion (CPL 440.30[3][a]); where that ground, if factually based, is supported by sworn allegations of fact essential to support the motion (CPL 440.30[3][b]); and where the sworn allegations of essential fact are either conceded by the People to be true or are conclusively substantiated by unquestionable documentary proof (CPL 440.30[3][c]). If all three of these statutory criteria are not met, the court may not grant a CPL 440.10 motion without first conducting a hearing (CPL 440.30[5]). …

… [T]he People did not concede the essential factual allegations on the issue of prejudice. Indeed, they expressly noted that defendant’s allegations of longstanding ties to the United States and lack of any connection to Haiti were entirely unsubstantiated. Neither did defendant proffer documentary proof conclusively substantiating his sworn factual allegations in support of his claim that “but for [his plea] counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … . …Thus, defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion failed to satisfy the third criterion of CPL 440.30(3), and for that reason, the motion court abused its discretion in granting defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without first conducting a hearing and making findings of fact … . People v Gaston, 2018 NY Slip Op 05122, First Dept 7-10-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))

CONTRARY TO THE TRIAL JUDGE’S RULING, DEFENDANT HAD SATISFIED THE FIRST STEP OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE PEOPLE’S STRIKING OF AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JUROR, THE BURDEN THEN SHIFTED TO THE PEOPLE TO ARTICULATE A NONDISCRIMINATORY REASON, THE MATTER IS SENT BACK FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE BATSON CHALLENGE USING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department sent the case back for a determination of a Batson challenge to the People’s use of peremptory challenge to strike an African-American prospective juror. The court had not used the correct procedure on first step. The Fourth Department held that defendant had satisfied the first step:

In order for the moving party to satisfy its burden at step one, it must ” show[ ] that the facts and circumstances of the voir dire raise an inference that the other party excused one or more jurors for an impermissible reason’ ” … . “A defendant need not show [either] a pattern of discrimination’ ” … or, as the court stated here, “a systematic approach by the prosecution.” Rather, a defendant may satisfy his or her burden under the first step by demonstrating that “members of the cognizable group were excluded while others with the same relevant characteristics were not” or that the People excluded members of the cognizable group “who, because of their background and experience, might otherwise be expected to be favorably disposed to the prosecution” … .

We conclude that defendant met his burden under step one by establishing that there is a basis in the record to infer that the People exercised the peremptory challenge in a discriminatory manner. Here, defense counsel explained to the court that the relevant prospective juror was the first African-American male “that’s been available without a [for]-cause” challenge and that the prospective juror provided answers during voir dire that were favorable to the prosecution, i.e., that the prospective juror had a number of family members in law enforcement, had a college degree and had at one time been robbed. Defense counsel thus implied that he could not ascertain from the prospective juror’s answers a reason for the peremptory challenge other than racial bias. The court did not provide defense counsel with any further opportunity to develop that argument and, instead, interrupted defense counsel and concluded that a pattern of discrimination had not been established.

Inasmuch as there is a basis in the record to infer that the People exercised the peremptory challenge in a discriminatory manner, we conclude that “the burden shifted to the People to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for striking the juror, and the court then should have determined whether the proffered reason was pretextual” … . People v Herrod, 2018 NY Slip Op 05110, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (CONTRARY TO THE TRIAL JUDGE’S RULING, DEFENDANT HAD SATISFIED THE FIRST STEP OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE PEOPLE’S STRIKING OF AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JUROR, THE BURDEN THEN SHIFTED TO THE PEOPLE TO ARTICULATE A NONDISCRIMINATORY REASON, THE MATTER IS SENT BACK FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE BATSON CHALLENGE USING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE (FOURTH DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, BATSON, CONTRARY TO THE TRIAL JUDGE’S RULING, DEFENDANT HAD SATISFIED THE FIRST STEP OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE PEOPLE’S STRIKING OF AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JUROR, THE BURDEN THEN SHIFTED TO THE PEOPLE TO ARTICULATE A NONDISCRIMINATORY REASON, THE MATTER IS SENT BACK FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE BATSON CHALLENGE USING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE (FOURTH DEPT))/BATSON PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL LAW, ONTRARY TO THE TRIAL JUDGE’S RULING, DEFENDANT HAD SATISFIED THE FIRST STEP OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE PEOPLE’S STRIKING OF AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JUROR, THE BURDEN THEN SHIFTED TO THE PEOPLE TO ARTICULATE A NONDISCRIMINATORY REASON, THE MATTER IS SENT BACK FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE BATSON CHALLENGE USING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the show up identification of the defendant should have been suppressed because the police did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the time the police approached and stopped the defendant. The police responded to a 911 dispatch indicating three black men, one with a book bag, had robbed a taxi driver on State Street and were headed east. Within two or three minutes a police officer spotted three men dressed in black, one with a book bag walking on a street west of State Street. Two of the men fled, but defendant remained. After defendant was taken into custody he was identified by the victim in a showup procedure. The Fourth Department noted that the three men were half a mile from the area indicated by the unidentified 911 caller and did not appear to be out of breath. The court also noted the fact that two of the men fled was not enough to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity on defendant’s part. The defendant also moved to suppress a cell phone that was found near where defendant was stopped. Denial of suppression was proper because there was no showing the phone was discarded because of unlawful conduct by the police. A new trial was ordered:

The necessary predicate for stopping and detaining defendant was that the officer have ” at least a reasonable suspicion that [defendant] ha[d] committed, [was] committing, or [was] about to commit a crime’ “… . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that the as-yet unidentified 911 caller was reliable and had a sufficient basis of knowledge… , we conclude that the information available to the detaining officer did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendant. People v Spinks, 2018 NY Slip Op 05103, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOPS, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, STREET STOPS, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION (STREET STOPS, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESSION  (STREET STOPS, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (STREET STOPS, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/DE BOUR (STREET STOPS, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))

SPECTATOR’S CLAIM JURORS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AS A ‘SCUMBAG’ WAS NOT CREDIBLE, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY DECIDED A JUROR-BIAS (BUFORD) HEARING WAS NOT REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, determined that the weight of the evidence supported the trial judge’s conclusion a spectator’s claim that jurors had referred to the defendant as a “scumbag” was not credible and therefore no juror-bias (Buford) hearing was required:

Upon exercising our factual review power, we conclude that the weight of the evidence supports the court’s implicit factual determination that the spectator was not credible. Initially, we note that the better practice would have been for the court, when making its determination, to make specific factual findings regarding whether and why it found the spectator not credible, and to set forth its determination and the reasons for it. Nevertheless, in view of the evidence regarding the spectator’s credibility, including the internal inconsistencies in her testimony as well as the differences between her description of the sequence of events and the court’s record of the proceedings, and after according the requisite “[g]reat deference . . . to the fact[]finder’s opportunity to view the witness[ ], hear the testimony and observe demeanor” … , we conclude that the weight of the evidence supports the court’s credibility determination. Consequently, the court “was justified in finding the spectator incredible and therefore determining [that] the Buford inquiry was not required” … . People v Kuzdzal, 2018 NY Slip Op 05099, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SPECTATOR’S CLAIM JURORS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AS A ‘SCUMBAG’ WAS NOT CREDIBLE, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY DECIDED A JUROR-BIAS (BUFORD) HEARING WAS NOT REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, SPECTATOR’S CLAIM JURORS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AS A ‘SCUMBAG’ WAS NOT CREDIBLE, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY DECIDED A JUROR-BIAS (BUFORD) HEARING WAS NOT REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT))/BUFORD HEARING (CRIMINAL LAW, JUROR BIAS, SPECTATOR’S CLAIM JURORS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AS A ‘SCUMBAG’ WAS NOT CREDIBLE, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY DECIDED A JUROR-BIAS (BUFORD) HEARING WAS NOT REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT))

RESENTENCING IN SUPREME COURT AFTER CONVICTION IN COUNTY COURT WAS ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant, who had been convicted in County Court was illegally resentenced in Supreme Court:

We agree with defendant … that he was illegally resentenced in Supreme Court after his trial was conducted in County Court. It is well settled that “in order to remove a criminal action from County Court to Supreme Court, the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts require that such removal be authorized by the Chief Administrator and that it occur prior to the entry of a plea or commencement of trial” … . Here, although the case was removed by the Chief Administrator, it did not occur prior to the commencement of trial. Thus, Supreme Court lacked authority to resentence defendant, thereby rendering the resentence illegal … . People v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 05090, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (RESENTENCING IN SUPREME COURT AFTER CONVICTION IN COUNTY COURT WAS ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT))

,

IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined that it was reversible error to allow the jury to hear evidence of two allegedly forged checks in the second forgery trial after defendant had been acquitted of the charges related to those checks in the first trial. The People were collaterally estopped from introducing evidence related to the acquittals:

At the new trial, notwithstanding that defendant was acquitted of the prior charged criminal conduct involving check numbers 61512 and 61519, the People were permitted to use those checks, over defendant’s objection, in their case-in-chief as evidence of, inter alia, defendant’s criminal intent and motive with respect to check number 61517. In instructing the jury concerning the purpose for which check numbers 61512 and 61519 could be considered, County Court referred to defendant’s alleged involvement with those checks as “uncharged conduct.” The court also instructed the jury: “Regarding evidence of other crimes, there may have been evidence that on another occasion the defendant engaged in criminal conduct.” Defendant contends, inter alia, that the People were collaterally estopped at the new trial from using check numbers 61512 and 61519 as evidence with respect to count two involving check number 61517, and that the court committed reversible error in permitting such evidence. We agree.

We conclude that it was improper for the court to characterize any evidence concerning defendant’s alleged possession of forged checks numbered 61512 and 61519 as “uncharged conduct” or “criminal conduct.” Defendant in fact had been charged, tried, and acquitted of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree with respect to those checks. We therefore further conclude that the People were collaterally estopped by the earlier verdict from presenting any evidence related to check numbers 61512 and 61519 at the new trial … . People v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 05089, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))/MOLINEUX (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))/PRIOR CRIMES AND BAD ACTS  (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DVDs SUBMITTED BY THE VICTIM’S FAMILY MEMBERS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE IN CONNECTION WITH WHETHER PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED PAROLE, BECAUSE THE DVDs DID NOT PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE, THE PAROLE BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE RESCINDED ITS DECISION TO SET A RELEASE DATE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, annulled the parole board’s rescission of its decision setting a release date for petitioner. In 1979, when petitioner was 19, he stabbed and killed his 15-year-old friend. The board initially set a release date of August 2016. The victim’s family then submitted two DVDs of statements by family members. Apparently the videos had been submitted before but were never made part of the file. Upon viewing the videos, the board rescinded its decision setting the release date. The Third Department found that the DVDs were not new evidence and therefore the rescission of the release date was not authorized:

Any alleged failure on respondent’s part to consider these materials earlier — not due to a failure to communicate with victims or to offer them opportunities to provide statements, but solely as the apparent result of respondent’s own inefficient filing system — cannot rationally be found to convert materials that had been provided to it 9 and 15 years before into new information that was not previously available or known.

… [O]ther challenges to parole rescission determinations based upon victim impact statements have exclusively involved new factual information that had not previously been known to respondent because the victims either had not provided statements or had not been given opportunities to do so … . Our review of the case law has revealed no other case involving a parole rescission decision that, as here, is based upon additional input from victims or family members who had previously submitted impact statements to respondent — much less multiple submissions of a thorough and extensive nature over many years.

In rescinding petitioner’s parole, respondent did not make the required finding that there was substantial evidence of “significant information” that “was not [previously] known by [respondent]” … . Matter of Duffy v New York State Bd. of Parole, 2018 NY Slip Op 05002, Third Dept 7-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (PAROLE, DVDs SUBMITTED BY THE VICTIM’S FAMILY MEMBERS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE IN CONNECTION WITH WHETHER PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED PAROLE, BECAUSE THE DVDs DID NOT PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE, THE PAROLE BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE RESCINDED ITS DECISION TO SET A RELEASE DATE (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PAROLE, DVDs SUBMITTED BY THE VICTIM’S FAMILY MEMBERS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE IN CONNECTION WITH WHETHER PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED PAROLE, BECAUSE THE DVDs DID NOT PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE, THE PAROLE BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE RESCINDED ITS DECISION TO SET A RELEASE DATE (THIRD DEPT))/PAROLE (EVIDENCE,  DVDs SUBMITTED BY THE VICTIM’S FAMILY MEMBERS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE IN CONNECTION WITH WHETHER PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED PAROLE, BECAUSE THE DVDs DID NOT PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE, THE PAROLE BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE RESCINDED ITS DECISION TO SET A RELEASE DATE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE FATAL SHOOTING OF THE VICTIM WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW OF THE SHOOTER’S INTENT TO KILL THE VICTIM, AS OPPOSED TO AN INTENT TO ROB OR ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined there was legally sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction that he acted as an accomplice in the fatal shooting of the victim by another man, White-Span. In other words, the elements of the charged offense were supported by some credible evidence. Defendant’s conviction was reversed, however, under a weight of the evidence analysis based on the weakness of the evidence that the defendant knew White-Span intended to kill the victim, as opposed to rob or assault the victim:

“Despite the [necessary] elements being supported by some credible evidence, because a different [verdict] would not have been unreasonable, this Court must independently examine the evidence further, viewing it in a neutral light to see if the verdict is against the weight of the evidence”… . Even if we accept that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that White-Span intentionally caused the victim’s death by shooting him and that defendant intentionally aided White-Span in locating and isolating the victim, the evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew — before the shooting occurred — that White-Span planned to kill the victim, because defendant could have had other equally plausible reasons for wanting access to the victim, such as robbery or assault. …

In light of the People’s failure to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant shared White-Span’s intent to kill the victim, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and the indictment against defendant dismissed … . People v Croley, 2018 NY Slip Op 04984, Third Dept 7-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE FATAL SHOOTING OF THE VICTIM, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW OF THE SHOOTER’S INTENT TO KILL THE VICTIM, AS OPPOSED TO AN INTENT TO ROB OR ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE, ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE FATAL SHOOTING OF THE VICTIM, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW OF THE SHOOTER’S INTENT TO KILL THE VICTIM, AS OPPOSED TO AN INTENT TO ROB OR ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT))/ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY (ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE FATAL SHOOTING OF THE VICTIM, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW OF THE SHOOTER’S INTENT TO KILL THE VICTIM, AS OPPOSED TO AN INTENT TO ROB OR ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY, ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE FATAL SHOOTING OF THE VICTIM, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW OF THE SHOOTER’S INTENT TO KILL THE VICTIM, AS OPPOSED TO AN INTENT TO ROB OR ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT))/INTENT (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY,  ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE FATAL SHOOTING OF THE VICTIM, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW OF THE SHOOTER’S INTENT TO KILL THE VICTIM, AS OPPOSED TO AN INTENT TO ROB OR ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT))/SHARED INTENT (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY,  ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE FATAL SHOOTING OF THE VICTIM, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW OF THE SHOOTER’S INTENT TO KILL THE VICTIM, AS OPPOSED TO AN INTENT TO ROB OR ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Office of Victim Services (OVS) properly paid out the assets of an incarcerated offender to the first crime victim to obtain a judgment. The statute does not provide for retaining assets for other crime victims who may subsequently obtain a judgment against the offender:

“Executive Law § 632—a sets forth a statutory scheme intended to improve the ability of crime victims to obtain full and just compensation from the person(s) convicted of the crime” …  by “allow[ing] crime victims or their representatives to sue the convicted criminals who harmed them when the criminals receive substantial sums of money from virtually any source” and protecting those funds while litigation is pending … . …

There is no doubt that OVS complied with its express obligations under the statute. The problem is that the statute provides no guidance as to how OVS is to respond where, as here, multiple crime victims seek to recover and the preserved assets of a convicted person are inadequate … . OVS viewed its response to be governed by the general rule that, “[w]here two or more . . . orders affecting the same interest in personal property or debt are filed, the proceeds of the property or debt shall be applied in the order of filing,” and acted to have the preserved assets released to satisfy the first judgment obtained by a victim (CPLR 5234 [c]). …

The Legislature could have easily included language in Executive Law § 632-a that substituted a special rule of priority for the one set forth in CPLR 5234 (c), directed OVS to leave any provisional remedies in place until all victims had obtained judgments or created some mechanism for dividing the preserved assets between them. It did not do so, and “‘[a] court cannot by implication supply in a statute a provision which it is reasonable to suppose the Legislature intended intentionally to omit'” … . Waldman v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05000, Third Dept 7-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, CRIME VICTIMS, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/CRIME VICTIMS (ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER,  EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES (OVS) (ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, CRIME VICTIMS, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CRIME VICTIMS, ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CRIME VICTIMS, ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, PRIORITY OF JUDGMENTS, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 5234 (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CRIME VICTIMS, ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, PRIORITY OF JUDGMENTS, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL COULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction of felony leaving the scene of an accident and ordered a new trial. Defendant struck a pedestrian whose body came into defendant’s car through the windshield. Defendant did not contact the police for over an hour. Prior to trial defense counsel obtained a ruling from the judge that the People could not introduce any evidence defendant sought to communicate with counsel. That ruling was violated twice by testifying witnesses:

Defendant’s strategy at trial relied in large part upon the fact that she was not at fault in the accident but did witness the victim’s body being propelled through her windshield and coming to rest inches away from her. She relied upon this state of affairs to contend that her failure to contact authorities was not because she was “coldly calculating,” but because she was in shock and incapable of doing so. Defendant further questioned the proof supporting the People’s hypothesis that she left the scene with her sister before the 911 call.

Any indication that defendant sought to consult with counsel would undermine the foundation of this defense by prejudically suggesting that she was conscious of guilt, rational enough to consider the question of counsel and, perhaps, capable of reporting the accident or taking steps to avoid doing so … . …

In our view, [the] repeated violations of the pretrial ruling, in a case where defendant’s capacity to act and her actions after the accident were in serious dispute, caused harm that could not be reliably dissipated. County Court therefore abused its discretion in declining to declare a mistrial … and, inasmuch as we do not agree with defendant that the People deliberately acted to provoke a mistrial …  we remit for a new trial. People v Lentini, 2018 NY Slip Op 04983, Third Dept 7-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL SHOULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL SHOULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL SHOULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL SHOULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD 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