You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, affirming defendant’s criminal mischief conviction and the restitution order, looked at the evidentiary issues raised on appeal through the lens of the relevant jury instructions. Where there is no objection to the jury instructions, the proof required of the People is that which is laid out in the jury instructions. The indictment alleged that the defendant and several others vandalized cars at a dealership by scratching the cars with keys causing total damage in the amount of $40,000. On appeal defendant argued (1) the charged offense requires damage to property owned by a “person” and the People did not demonstrate that the car dealership was a “person” within the meaning of the statute, (2) the precise amount of damage attributable to the defendant was not proven, and (3) ordering defendant to pay restitution in the full amount of the damages was error. All of defendant’s arguments were rejected:

The court told the jury that defendant must have damaged the property of “another person” — not “another human being” — and it is common knowledge that personhood can and sometimes does attach to nonhuman entities like corporations or animals …. Indeed, the Court of Appeals has written that personhood is “not a question of biological or natural’ correspondence”…, and we can “presume[]” that the jurors had ” sufficient intelligence’ to make [the] elementary logical inferences presupposed by the language of [the court’s] charge” … . In short, defendant’s personhood argument effectively transforms an undefined but commonly understood term into an incorrectly defined term, and we decline to follow him down that path. …

… [T]he jury was instructed — without objection — that “[i]f it is proven . . . that the defendant acted in concert with others, he is thus criminally liable for their conduct. The extent or degree of the defendant’s participation in the crime does not matter” … . Perhaps this instruction was inconsistent with section 20.15 … but it still forecloses defendant’s claim of factual insufficiency as to value. …

… [T]he Court of Appeals previously upheld a restitution award that imposed the full value of the victim’s loss on a single perpetrator, instead of apportioning the loss among the defendant and his accomplices …— as defendant appears to seek here. People v Graves, 2018 NY Slip Op 04503, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))/RESTITUTION (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the DWI case for resentencing, determined defendant’s sentence should not have been changed after defendant left the courtroom. The court further found that the five-year conditional discharge to monitor the ignition interlock device exceeded the maximum allowed term (three years):

“[D]efendants have a fundamental right to be present at sentencing’ in the absence of a waiver” of that right … , and here defendant did not waive his right to be present at sentencing. Thus, as the People correctly concede, the court erred in changing the sentence of incarceration after defendant left the courtroom inasmuch as a resentencing to correct an error in a sentence “must be done in the defendant’s presence” … . People v Perkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 04472, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT))

,

ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, rejected defendant’s arguments that (1) the People failed to prove the “service of the order” element of criminal contempt, and (2) his acquittal on some counts of the indictment rendered the evidence legally insufficient for the counts on which he was convicted.

… [D]efendant argues only that the convictions on counts two and five are legally insufficient due to the jury’s acquittals on the remaining counts. According to defendant, “when the conduct that was plainly rejected by the jury is removed from consideration, there is nothing left to support the physical menace conviction [count two] or the conviction for engaging in conduct that created a substantial risk of serious physical injury [count five].” Put differently, “the only conduct upon which defendant could be found guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted was smashing [his wife’s] car windows with a metal pipe while she was inside it. Because the jury was unwilling to find that defendant engaged in that conduct,” defendant continues, “the convictions must be reversed as unsupported by legally sufficient evidence.”

… [T]he mixed verdicts provide no basis to question the legal sufficiency of the convictions… . In fact, defendant’s argument is a classic “masked repugnancy” argument … , and it suffers from the same premise error that dooms all “masked repugnancy” arguments: it assumes that a jury’s verdict on one count can be weaponized to attack the legal or factual sufficiency of its verdict on another count. But that is not the law. To the contrary, the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that “[f]actual inconsistency [in a verdict]— which can be attributed to mistake, confusion, compromise or mercy—does not provide a reviewing court with the power to overturn a verdict’ ” on legal sufficiency grounds … . * * *

… [D]efendant says that the People failed to prove the so-called “service element” of that crime, i.e., that the underlying protective order was “duly served” upon him or that he had “actual knowledge [thereof] because he . . . was present in court when [it] was issued” … . Because the service element is phrased disjunctively — i.e., it is satisfied if the defendant violates either a “duly served” protective order or a protective order of which he or she has “actual knowledge” because of his or her presence in court …) — the People need prove only one of the statutory alternatives beyond reasonable doubt … . People v Nichols, 2018 NY Slip Op 04502, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICTS (CRIMINAL LAW, ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT))/INCONSISTENT VERDICTS  (CRIMINAL LAW, ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTEMPT, CRIMINAL (SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff insurer could not completely disclaim coverage of injuries suffered by the defendant at the insured home (owned by the McCabe’s). McCabe was convicted of assaulting and strangling the defendant. Defendant alleges that after McCabe assaulted her she fell over a tripping hazard in the McCabe home and was injured in the fall. Although the insurer can properly disclaim coverage for any injuries inflicted by McCabe’s intentional criminal conduct under the collateral estoppel doctrine, the insurer could not, at this early stage, disclaim coverage for any injuries that might have been caused by McCabe’s negligence (tripping hazard, failure to seek medical care, etc.):

Plaintiff asserts that, to convict McCabe, the criminal jury must have disbelieved his version of events. It is possible, however, that the jury disbelieved only some portions of his testimony … . The jury may have found it incredible that all of defendant’s facial and head injuries were caused when she tried to walk on her own, fell over a raised threshold in the doorway and hit her head on a cinder block wall during that fall. It is also possible that the jury believed that McCabe slammed defendant’s head into the ground or a wall, thereby causing some of her injuries, but the jury did not render any findings regarding what happened after the choking and slamming, such as whether defendant then got up, tried to walk and fell. To establish the convictions, it was unnecessary for the jury to have made findings regarding whether McCabe created a tripping hazard, allowed defendant to walk on her own after he had rendered her partially incapacitated or failed to seek medical help for her after the criminal assault. Hence, the issues as to insurance coverage and exclusions are not identical to the issues decided in McCabe’s criminal trial, and defendants here did not have a full and fair opportunity in the criminal trial to address some of the issues regarding McCabe’s negligence allegedly committed before and after the criminal assault. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was no possible factual or legal basis to support a finding that some of defendant’s injuries were unintended by McCabe, so as to bar coverage under the policy exclusion … . Accordingly, collateral estoppel does not apply here, except as to the more narrow issues necessarily decided in the criminal trial, and plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment or a declaratory judgment at this early stage of this coverage action … . State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Chauncey McCabe, 2018 NY Slip Op 04416, Third Dept 6-14-18

​INSURANCE LAW (ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (INSURANCE LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))

,

PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined it was error to fail to provide notice to the defendant of an identification procedure involving the victim of the burglary, Febus. The error was deemed harmless, however:

Febus testified that approximately one week prior to the burglary, she answered a ringing doorbell to find a stranger who asked for a person who was unknown to her. The individual left before she could respond to his inquiry. She described the individual as an older black man with long hair who was carrying a satchel. Approximately 10 days after the burglary, Febus went to the police station and identified various objects that had been taken from her residence. While she was at the police station, she asked a police officer about the identity of the individual who had broken into her residence, and the officer provided defendant’s name. She then asked the officer if she could see a picture of the individual, and the officer responded that it “was online on the Albany Police Department’s [Facebook page].” Febus testified that she returned home and accessed the Facebook page. Over defendant’s objection, County Court permitted Febus to continue her testimony regarding her prior identification of defendant. In that regard, she testified that when she accessed the police department’s Facebook page, she saw a number of mugshots and immediately identified defendant as the person who had knocked on her door approximately one week prior to the burglary.

We are not presented with the issue of whether maintenance by a police department of a Facebook page or website with mugshot photos of arrested individuals — or referral of individuals to such a website — are, without more, police-initiated identification procedures because, in this case, the police officer also provided Febus with defendant’s name when he told her that she could view a picture of the person who had been arrested for burglarizing her home on the police department’s Facebook page. The fact that she had been provided with defendant’s name could have influenced her identification of defendant when she subsequently viewed the Facebook page. This, in our view, was sufficient police involvement to invoke the notice requirement of CPL 710.30 (1) … . Inasmuch as notice was not provided, County Court erred in permitting Febus to identify defendant as the person who came to her home prior to the burglary. People v Cole, 2018 NY Slip Op 04391, Third Dept 6-14-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTIFICATION, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTIFICATION, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, NOTICE, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))/FACEBOOK (CRIMINAL LAW, MUG SHOTS, IDENTIFICATION, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))

,

WHETHER TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE IS A STRATEGIC DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT RELINQUISH HIS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO REQUEST A MISTRIAL MERELY BY CONFERRING WITH THE DEFENDANT AND AGREEING WITH THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED, IT WAS NOT ERROR TO HANDCUFF DEFENDANT AND TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SEATED NEAR THE DEFENDANT DURING THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined: (1) whether to introduce psychiatric evidence that defendant suffered from Secure Housing Unit Syndrome (Grassian Syndrome) was a strategic decision for defense counsel, not defendant; (2) defense counsel did not relinquish his authority to decide whether to request a mistrial merely by conferring with the defendant and agreeing with the defendant’s wish for the trial to proceed; (3) it was not error to handcuff the defendant during the trial and to have law enforcement officers seated near the defendant and in the gallery during the trial (defendant was on trial for allegedly attacking and stabbing a prison guard with an ice pick):

… [T]he decision of whether to present psychiatric evidence in furtherance of the affirmative defense of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disease or defect is a strategic decision involving the exercise of professional judgment, over which defense counsel retains ultimate decision-making authority … . Additionally, the record reflects that defense counsel “fully” investigated a possible psychiatric defense and, having done so, “made ‘a calculated trial strategy’ to fashion a different defense” … . …

Defense counsel’s statements on the record do not demonstrate, as defendant argues, that he ceded his decision-making authority to defendant. Rather, the record reflects that defense counsel consulted with defendant and received his input on the matter before withdrawing his motion for a mistrial … . …

County Court stated on the record that defendant had a “clear record of violence both within and outside the prison” and that it was therefore not “comfortable” with the security risks posed by allowing defendant to sit throughout the trial without restraints. Considering defendant’s violent criminal history, as well as the fact that the present charges arose out of allegations that defendant attacked the victim in the hopes that he would incite retaliatory actions from correction officers that would result in his death, we find that County Court’s stated security concerns provided a reasonable basis to require that defendant be restrained during the trial… . Nor do we find that defendant was deprived of a fair trial by County Court’s determination to allow, as a security measure, two correction officers to sit near defendant throughout the trial and other law enforcement personnel to sit in the court’s gallery … . People v Diaz, 2018 NY Slip Op 04389, Third Dept 6-14-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (WHETHER TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE IS A STRATEGIC DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT RELINQUISH HIS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO REQUEST A MISTRIAL MERELY BY CONFERRING WITH THE DEFENDANT AND AGREEING WITH THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED, IT WAS NOT ERROR TO HANDCUFF DEFENDANT AND TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SEATED NEAR THE DEFENDANT DURING THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, WHETHER TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE IS A STRATEGIC DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT RELINQUISH HIS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO REQUEST A MISTRIAL MERELY BY CONFERRING WITH THE DEFENDANT AND AGREEING WITH THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED, IT WAS NOT ERROR TO HANDCUFF DEFENDANT AND TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SEATED NEAR THE DEFENDANT DURING THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE, WHETHER TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE IS A STRATEGIC DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT RELINQUISH HIS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO REQUEST A MISTRIAL MERELY BY CONFERRING WITH THE DEFENDANT AND AGREEING WITH THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED, IT WAS NOT ERROR TO HANDCUFF DEFENDANT AND TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SEATED NEAR THE DEFENDANT DURING THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE IS A STRATEGIC DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT RELINQUISH HIS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO REQUEST A MISTRIAL MERELY BY CONFERRING WITH THE DEFENDANT AND AGREEING WITH THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED, IT WAS NOT ERROR TO HANDCUFF DEFENDANT AND TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SEATED NEAR THE DEFENDANT DURING THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/RESTRAINTS (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL, WHETHER TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE IS A STRATEGIC DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT RELINQUISH HIS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO REQUEST A MISTRIAL MERELY BY CONFERRING WITH THE DEFENDANT AND AGREEING WITH THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED, IT WAS NOT ERROR TO HANDCUFF DEFENDANT AND TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SEATED NEAR THE DEFENDANT DURING THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/TRIALS (CRIMINAL LAW, RESTRAINTS, EXTRA LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL, WHETHER TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE IS A STRATEGIC DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT RELINQUISH HIS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO REQUEST A MISTRIAL MERELY BY CONFERRING WITH THE DEFENDANT AND AGREEING WITH THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED, IT WAS NOT ERROR TO HANDCUFF DEFENDANT AND TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SEATED NEAR THE DEFENDANT DURING THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

FAILURE TO RAISE THE SPECIFIC OBJECTION ARGUED ON APPEAL AND FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY JOIN IN AN OBJECTION BY CO-COUNSEL RENDERED THE OBJECTIONS UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL, EVIDENCE OF GANG STRUCTURE PROPERLY ADMITTED TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE AND INTENT, AND TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two judge dissenting opinion, determined defendant’s objection to a juror who spoke out during the about defense counsel’s repeated use of a racial slur was not preserved for appeal. Defense counsel did not make the specific objection relied upon on appeal and was silent when objections were made by another defense attorney. The court further held that references to gang structure in the prison where the assault occurred were admissible to show the defendant’s motive and intent to join the assault:

To preserve an issue of law for appellate review, “counsel must register an objection and apprise the court of grounds upon which the objection is based at the time’ of the allegedly erroneous ruling or at any subsequent time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same'” … . * * *

We are unpersuaded, first, by defendant’s argument that because his counsel referred to Juror Six as “grossly unqualified,” he preserved his Buford claim that the trial court had to make an inquiry into the juror’s ability to be impartial. What defendant ignores is that counsel’s reference to Juror Six being grossly unqualified was raised solely in relation to his consistent position that the only way to protect defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury was to grant the specific remedy of a mistrial. Counsel argued vigorously that Juror Six had irreversibly tainted the entire jury——a defect in the process that would require more than the discharge of a single juror … . That being the case, counsel’s failure to join another codefendant’s request for a Buford inquiry after the court denied the mistrial motion makes plain the singular course set by counsel. …

Defendant’s alternative argument, that he preserved the issue for appellate review by way of his codefendant’s objection, is similarly unpersuasive. The Court has, in a different context, rejected the proposition that an issue is preserved for appellate review, notwithstanding a defendant’s failure to expressly present the matter to the trial court, merely because another party or codefendant protested or objected. * * *

… [T]he testimony elicited by the People about the Bloods was probative of defendant’s motive and intent to join the assault on complainant, and provided necessary background information on the nature of the relationship between the codefendants, thus placing the charged conduct in context … . The testimony was intended to explain why defendant and one of the codefendants were quick to join in the fight, as well as the gang-related meaning of the words complainant alleged that the codefendant used during and after the attack. In fact, very little of the investigator’s testimony focused on sensational details about the Bloods. The testimony described how members are identified and briefly discussed how carrying out an act of violence on behalf of a member might allow another member to rise in the gang’s hierarchy. People v Bailey, 2018 NY Slip Op 04383, CtApp 6-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, EVIDENCE, FAILURE RAISE THE SPECIFIC OBJECTION ARGUED ON APPEAL AND FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY JOIN IN AN OBJECTION BY CO-COUNSEL RENDERED THE OBJECTIONS UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL, EVIDENCE OF GANG STRUCTURE PROPERLY ADMITTED TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE AND INTENT, AND TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE RAISE THE SPECIFIC OBJECTION ARGUED ON APPEAL AND FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY JOIN IN AN OBJECTION BY CO-COUNSEL RENDERED THE OBJECTIONS UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL, EVIDENCE OF GANG STRUCTURE PROPERLY ADMITTED TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE AND INTENT, AND TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMNAL LAW, EVIDENCE OF GANG STRUCTURE PROPERLY ADMITTED TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE AND INTENT, AND TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (CT APP))/GANGS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE OF GANG STRUCTURE PROPERLY ADMITTED TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE AND INTENT, AND TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (CT APP))

,

DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT CONVICTION INVOLVING A SINGLE VICTIM AFFIRMED, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT NEED NOT FIT WITHIN THE NARROW EXCEPTIONS CARVED OUT FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a concurring opinion, determined that defendant was properly convicted of depraved indifference assault in connection with the long-term abuse and serious injury inflicted on his live-in girlfriend. The court noted that there is no conflict between the intention to inflict serious injury and a finding of depraved indifference in assault cases (grave risk of death). The court further noted that the circumstances giving rise to depraved indifference assault need not fit into the narrow exceptions carved out for depraved indifference murder:

Here, the trial court instructed the jury … that they could find defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life if, “having a conscious objective not to kill but to harm, he engages in . . . a brutal, prolonged and potentially fatal course of conduct against a particularly vulnerable victim.” The failure of either party to object to the charge meant that “the law as stated in that charge became the law applicable to the determination of the rights of the parties . . . and thus established the legal standard by which the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict must be judged”… . Thus, “the legal sufficiency of defendant’s conviction must be viewed in light of the court’s charge as given without exception” … .

Viewed as such, the jury could reasonably conclude that the victim’s injuries were so severely debilitating that the repeated trauma rendered her particularly vulnerable. In fact, the victim could barely move and speak before she lapsed into a coma. The People also presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer that the victim’s injuries persisted for a prolonged period of time. * * *

… [D]defendant is incorrect that depraved indifference assault must fit into one of the narrow exceptions for bringing depraved indifference murder charges in one-on-one killings. * * * … [D]epraved indifference assault should not be constrained to the exceptions to the rule against charging depraved indifference murder in one-on-one killings. People v Wilson, 2018 NY Slip Op 04380, CtApp 6-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT CONVICTION INVOLVING A SINGLE VICTIM AFFIRMED, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT NEED NOT FIT WITHIN THE NARROW EXCEPTIONS CARVED OUT FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT CONVICTION INVOLVING A SINGLE VICTIM AFFIRMED, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT NEED NOT FIT WITHIN THE NARROW EXCEPTIONS CARVED OUT FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (CT APP))/DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT (DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT CONVICTION INVOLVING A SINGLE VICTIM AFFIRMED, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT NEED NOT FIT WITHIN THE NARROW EXCEPTIONS CARVED OUT FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (CT APP))/ASSAULT (DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT CONVICTION INVOLVING A SINGLE VICTIM AFFIRMED, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT NEED NOT FIT WITHIN THE NARROW EXCEPTIONS CARVED OUT FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (CT APP))

,

STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO EXCULPATE DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive three-judge dissenting opinion, determined that the alleged declarations of three witnesses who testified at the hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction did not meet the criteria for declarations against penal interest. Therefore the statements were not admissible and the motion to vacate was properly denied. The decision is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here. The defendant was convicted of kidnapping Allen, who has not been seen since she disappeared in 1994:

At the hearing defendant called as witnesses all three declarants of the hearsay statements proffered as admissions against penal interests, as well as additional witnesses who testified to inculpatory statements alleged to have been made by each of the declarants. The declarants denied making the admissions and any complicity in Allen’s kidnapping. Nevertheless, enabled by the speculative nature of the disparate admissions containing few details, defendant pursued more than one theory of complicity at the hearing — attempting to establish that, either singly or in combination, the declarants were involved in the kidnapping or the murder or the disposal of Allen’s body … . * * *

In order to be admissible under that exception, “the following elements must be present: first, the declarant must be unavailable as a witness at [the hearing]; second, when the statement was made the declarant must be aware that it was adverse to his penal interest; third, the declarant must have competent knowledge of the facts underlying the statement; and, fourth, and most important, supporting circumstances independent of the statement itself must be present to attest to its trustworthiness and reliability” … . …

.. [T]the record supports County Court’s determination that the independent corroboration necessary for admissibility of the declarations against penal interest was not sufficient. The requisite independent evidence circumvents fabrication and augments the trustworthiness of the declaration. “By imposing such a requirement, a balance is struck between the interest of defendant to introduce evidence on his own behalf and the compelling interest of the State to preserve the integrity of the fact-finding process in this aspect of criminal prosecutions” … . As we have explained, this determination of the reliability of proffered declarations against penal interest “involves a delicate balance of diverse factors and is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, which is aptly suited to weigh the circumstances surrounding the declaration and the evidence used to bolster its reliability. The crucial inquiry focuses on the intrinsic trustworthiness of the statement as confirmed by competent evidence independent of the declaration itself” … . People v Thibodeau, 2018 NY Slip Op 04378, CtApp 6-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO EXCULPATE DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO EXCULPATE DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW,  DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO EXCULPATE DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP))/DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST (STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO EXCULPATE DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO EXCULPATE DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP))

,

THERE IS NO ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUND FOR VACATION OF A GUILTY PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.10 (h) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over a concurring opinion and a two-judge dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate her conviction (by guilty plea) on actual innocence grounds should not have been granted. Actual innocence, the court held, is not a ground for relief in this context. Defendant was a nurse who pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a disabled person. Defendant had given the severely disabled child a bath and the child apparently sustained third degree burns. In support of her motion to vacate, the defendant presented expert evidence, including biopsy testing, that the apparent burns were the result of an allergic reaction (TEN/SJS). Defendant had been sued civilly and won, despite being precluded from contesting liability:

​The evidence at issue here was not newly discovered. The information regarding TEN/SJS and the existence of the biopsy testing were a part of the victim’s medical records, and the possibility of obtaining a medical expert on behalf of defendant had been discussed with defense counsel before the guilty plea was entered. Since the evidence put forth in support of defendant’s actual innocence claim was discoverable before the guilty plea had her attorney pursued that course of investigation, defendant’s challenge to her conviction falls squarely within CPL 440.10 (1) (h) … .

Moreover, although defendant provided the biopsy results and an expert affidavit to support the conclusion that she was innocent of scalding the victim with hot water, that evidence only raises some doubt as to her guilt by setting up a battle of experts. It does not establish her factual innocence — particularly in light of the significant barrier presented by her inculpatory statements and guilty plea. …

Permitting a collateral attack on a guilty plea based on a claim of new evidence that contradicts the solemn admission of guilt entered during the course of a judicial proceeding free of constitutional error would have enormous ramifications to the efficacy of our criminal justice system. The legislature has not sanctioned such claims in CPL 440.10 with the exception of the production of DNA evidence demonstrating the identity of the actual assailant, and even that narrow exception has legislatively imposed procedural limitations … . Defendant nonetheless asks us to judicially create this extraordinary path for a defendant who has pleaded guilty. We decline to do so. …

… [W]here the defendant has been convicted by guilty plea, there is no actual innocence claim cognizable under CPL 440.10 (1) (h). People v Tiger, 2018 NY Slip Op 04377, CtApp 6-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ACTUAL INNOCENCE, THERE IS NO ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUND FOR VACATION OF A GUILTY PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.10 (h) (CT APP))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (ACTUAL INNOCENCE, THERE IS NO ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUND FOR VACATION OF A GUILTY PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.10 (h) (CT APP))/ACTUAL INNOCENCE (VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO, THERE IS NO ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUND FOR VACATION OF A GUILTY PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.10 (h) (CT APP))/GUILTY PLEA (ACTUAL INNOCENCE, THERE IS NO ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUND FOR VACATION OF A GUILTY PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.10 (h) (CT APP))

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