You are here: / Criminal Law
,

WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the court should have conducted a searching inquiry into defendant’s representing himself when he indicated he wished to testify at the grand jury at his first and second appearances in court:

… [D]efendant appeared in City Court for arraignment on a felony complaint and a misdemeanor information charging him with the offenses for which he was later indicted. Defendant, as is relevant here, stated that he wished to represent himself and testify before the grand jury. He remained unrepresented at a second appearance three days later and reiterated his desire to appear before the grand jury. The indictment was handed up shortly thereafter, and it appears that the People disregarded defendant’s desire to testify before the grand jury because he failed to make a written demand as required … . …​

“[D]efendant’s indelible right to counsel . . . attached when the felony complaint against him was first filed” …  and, while he could waive that right and proceed pro se, the waiver would be invalid absent a “searching inquiry” by City Court to discern whether defendant understood and “appreciated the ‘dangers and disadvantages’ of” self-representation… . There was no inquiry conducted here, leaving the record silent as to whether “defendant ‘acted with full knowledge and appreciation of the panoply of constitutional protections that would be adversely affected by counsel’s inability to participate'” so as to constitute a valid waiver … . Defendant should therefore not have been permitted to proceed pro se … . It follows that defendant was deprived of an opportunity to consult with counsel — who could have assisted defendant in deciding whether to appear before the grand jury and made an effective demand to appear in the event he chose to do so — and this “deprivation of defendant’s constitutional right to counsel requires the dismissal of the indictment” … . People v Trapani, 2018 NY Slip Op 04041, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT))/GRAND JURY ( WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT))

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defense counsel’s for cause challenge to a juror should have been granted:

Turning first to defendant’s contention regarding prospective juror No. 4 from round three, she indicated that she knew Ruth Crepet, a physician that the People intended to call as a witness, as Crepet was her primary care physician of 15 years. Although the juror stated that she had a preconceived notion that Crepet would be truthful, she indicated that she could be impartial and fair at trial in that regard. This juror also stated that her husband was the victim of a robbery and, because the person “got off,” she was “a little cynical” about the criminal justice system, but “would try” to be impartial and thought “that [she] could be.” When asked if she could find defendant guilty, this juror stated “yes, you bet.” …​

While it is not necessarily an issue that Crepet was the prospective juror’s doctor … , her general equivocality is problematic. “Equivocal, uncertain responses, including statements that a prospective juror will ‘try’ or ‘hope’ to be impartial, are insufficient in the absence of [other] ‘express and unequivocal’ declarations that the juror will put any preconceptions aside and render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence” … . Here, while some of the prospective juror’s responses were unequivocal, many were not, and, as such, her responses as a whole do not demonstrate that her opinion would not influence her verdict … . Therefore, further inquiry was needed and, in the absence of said inquiry, it was error for Supreme Court to deny defendant’s challenge for cause … . People v Horton, 2018 NY Slip Op 04040, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT)

PETTY SLAPS DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL PAIN, ROBBERY SECOND REDUCED TO ROBBERY THIRD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Dept, reducing the robbery second conviction to robbery third, determined the proof of substantial pain was insufficient:

… [W]e agree with the defendant that the evidence was insufficient to establish “substantial pain” beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain his conviction of robbery in the second degree Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]). The People’s evidence, presented through photographs and police testimony, was insufficient to establish that plaintiff suffered more than “petty slaps” and, therefore, failed to establish “substantial pain” beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Ramos, 2018 NY Slip Op 04097, First Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ROBBERY, PETTY SLAPS DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL PAIN, ROBBERY SECOND REDUCED TO ROBBERY THIRD (FIRST DEPT))/ROBBERY (SUBSTANTIAL PAIN, PETTY SLAPS DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL PAIN, ROBBERY SECOND REDUCED TO ROBBERY THIRD (FIRST DEPT))/SUBSTANTIAL PAIN  (ROBBERY, PETTY SLAPS DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL PAIN, ROBBERY SECOND REDUCED TO ROBBERY THIRD (FIRST DEPT))

FAILURE TO EXPLAIN TO THE JURY THAT ACQUITTAL OF ATTEMPTED MURDER BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL OF ASSAULT FIRST WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, NEW TRIAL ON ASSAULT FIRST ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s assault first conviction, over an extensive dissent, determined it was reversible error to fail to instruct the jury that acquittal of the top count (attempted murder) based on the justification defense would require acquittal on the assault first count:

“While the jury may have acquitted on the top charge without relying on defendant’s justification defense . . . it is nevertheless impossible to discern whether acquittal of the top count . . . was based on the jurors’ finding of justification so as to mandate acquittal on the two lesser counts” … . People v Breckenridge, 2018 NY Slip Op 04074, First Dept 6-7-18​

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO EXPLAIN TO THE JURY THAT ACQUITTAL OF ATTEMPTED MURDER BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL OF ASSAULT FIRST WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, NEW TRIAL ON ASSAULT FIRST ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO EXPLAIN TO THE JURY THAT ACQUITTAL OF ATTEMPTED MURDER BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL OF ASSAULT FIRST WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, NEW TRIAL ON ASSAULT FIRST ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, FAILURE TO EXPLAIN TO THE JURY THAT ACQUITTAL OF ATTEMPTED MURDER BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL OF ASSAULT FIRST WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, NEW TRIAL ON ASSAULT FIRST ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the court did not adequately explain the rights defendant was giving up by pleading guilty:

During the plea proceedings, County Court engaged in an abbreviated colloquy during which it made only a passing reference to the rights that defendant was giving up by pleading guilty. Notably, the court did not mention the privilege against self-incrimination or advise defendant of his right to a jury trial. Nor did the court ascertain whether defendant had conferred with counsel regarding the trial-related rights that he was waiving or the constitutional consequences of his guilty plea. With no affirmative showing on the record that defendant understood and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights when he entered his guilty plea, the plea was invalid and must be vacated … . People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 04039, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA, COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO THE REASON FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SENTENCING, SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT)

The Third Department determined the court should have inquired into the reasons for defendant’s failure to appear at sentencing before sentencing him in absentia:

When defendant did not appear for sentencing on April 2, 2015, the court noted that defendant had been present for “each and every other occasion,” before issuing a bench warrant and adjourning sentencing to April 9, 2015. When defendant again failed to appear, his counsel represented that the only contact he had had with defendant was a conversation on April 1, 2015, when defendant informed counsel that he had additional doctors’ appointments to attend, and counsel advised him to appear in court for sentencing on April 2, 2015. There is no indication in the record that defendant was advised that sentencing was adjourned to April 9, 2015. The court was aware of defendant’s medical condition, which had required hospitalization in October 2014 and was the reason that sentencing was first adjourned from January 2015 to April 2, 2015. The court specifically observed that no explanation for defendant’s absence had been provided by defendant or his counsel but, nonetheless, made no inquiry on the record into the status of any efforts to locate defendant since April 2, when it had issued the bench warrant, before it proceeded to sentence him in absentia. In light of its failure to make any inquiry whatsoever into the reason for defendant’s absence, County Court erred when it sentenced defendant in absentia … . People v Sassenscheid, 2018 NY Slip Op 04037, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO THE REASON FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SENTENCING, SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/SENTENCING (COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO THE REASON FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SENTENCING, SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT))

BECAUSE A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NULLIFIED THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the complicated facts of this case nullified  a benefit that was expressly promised as inducement to a guilty plea. Defendant had pled guilty to burglaries in two counties (Schenectady and Albany) as a persistent felony offender. Both persistent felony offender guilty pleas were overturned. His subsequent plea was reversed in this case:

Defendant pleaded guilty here upon the understanding that the imposed sentence would run concurrently to the aggregate prison sentence of 16½ years to life imposed in Albany County. He was also aware that a higher aggregate sentence would be imposed in Albany County if he successfully challenged his status as a persistent violent felony offender, and Supreme Court promised that any resentence in this case would run concurrently to that increased sentence.

During the pendency of this appeal, this Court reversed the judgment of conviction in Albany County, vacated defendant’s guilty plea and remitted for further proceedings … . The sentencing exposure that prompted defendant’s concern about concurrent sentencing here accordingly dissolved and, indeed, he entered into a new plea arrangement in Albany County where he received, among other things, a much shorter prison term of six years. In short, the “reduction of the preexisting sentence [in Albany County] nullified a benefit that was expressly promised and was a material inducement to the guilty plea” here … . Inasmuch as “we cannot say that defendant would have foregone pretrial and trial rights and pleaded guilty” had he known that his guilty plea in Albany County would be vacated, his plea must also be vacated here … . People v Brewington, 2018 NY Slip Op 04035, Third Dept 6-7-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (PLEA AGREEMENTS, BECAUSE A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NULLIFIED THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/PLEA AGREEMENTS (BECAUSE A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NULLIFIED THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEAS (PLEA AGREEMENTS, BECAUSE A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NULLIFIED THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED (THIRD DEPT))

DEFENDANT PROPERLY ACCUSED AND CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED POSSESSION OF A SWITCHBLADE, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, affirmed defendant’s conviction for attempted possession of a weapon, i.e., a switchblade. The dissent argued that the proof at the non-jury trial and the allegations in the accusatory instrument did not demonstrate the knife met the statutory definition of a switchblade:

From the dissent:  … [T]he narrow issue presented on this appeal is whether the knife described in the accusatory instrument and at trial meets the statutory description for a per se weapon, one which is outlawed regardless of the defendant’s reasons for possession. The majority holds that the accusatory instrument is jurisdictionally sound because the knife as described meets the statutory definition of a switchblade… . I disagree. Moreover, even if the majority were correct, the evidence at trial established that the knife in question was not a switchblade within the meaning of the Penal Law. People v Berrezueta, 2018 NY Slip Op 04032, CtApp 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT PROPERLY ACCUSED AND CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED POSSESSION OF A SWITCHBLADE, DISSENTING OPINION DISAGREED (CT APP))/SWITCHBLADES (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT PROPERLY ACCUSED AND CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED POSSESSION OF A SWITCHBLADE, DISSENTING OPINION DISAGREED (CT APP))

,

DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed defendant’s conviction of depraved indifference murder and assault. During a high speed chase defendant fired a bullet into the car he was following. The driver, Singh, lost control and struck a trestle. One person, Arena, was killed, and Singh and another person, Weiner, were seriously injured. Defendant fled the scene. Defendant had been convicted of these crimes in 2003 and they were affirmed on appeal. But he obtained federal habeas corpus relief in 2013 and was retried in 2015.The sentencing court properly imposed a consecutive sentence for criminal possession of a weapon, which was not an inclusory concurrent count. One of the witnesses in the first trial had been deported and the court properly admitted his testimony at the second trial:

[T]he evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death to another person. The defendant engaged in a high-speed chase, in the course of which he fired a gun at the fleeing car, causing Singh, the driver, to lose control of that car. Following the crash, the defendant exhibited no signs of remorse for the results of his recklessness, and even went so far as to express his disappointment that Weiner had survived the crash. The direct and circumstantial evidence proved that the defendant deliberately engaged in a high-speed chase and shot at Singh’s car with an utter disregard for the value of human life, and thus, was legally sufficient to support the jury’s determination that the defendant acted with depraved indifference with respect to the death of Arena and the serious injuries sustained by Singh and Weiner … . …

The defendant’s contention that the County Court erred in admitting the testimony of Jose Vanderlinde from the first trial is without merit. Vanderlinde had testified at the defendant’s first trial but was deported before the second trial commenced, and was barred from re-entering the United States. Under these circumstances, the court properly admitted Vanderlinde’s testimony from the defendant’s first trial, as the prosecutor’s failure to produce the witness “was not due to indifference or a strategic preference for presenting [the witness’s] testimony in the more sheltered form of [trial] minutes rather than in the confrontational setting of a personal appearance on the stand … . People v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 04015, Second Dept 6-6-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/PRIOR TESTIMONY (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE SEX OFFENDER TO DISCLOSE HIS OR HER USE OF FACEBOOK, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE SEX OFFENDER DISCLOSE EMAIL ADDRESSES AND SCREEN NAMES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the indictment charging defendant sex offender with a violation of the Correction Law for failing to disclose his use of Facebook was jurisdictionally defective. Disclosure of his Facebook use is not required by the Correction Law and, therefore, failure to disclose is not a crime. Defendant had complied with the requirements of Correction Law §§ 168-f (4) and 168-a (18) by disclosing his email address and screen names:

… [W]e conclude that the social media website or application — be it Facebook or any other social networking website or application — does not constitute a “designation used for the purposes of chat, instant messaging, social networking or other similar [I]nternet communication” (Correction Law § 168-a [18]). An Internet identifier is not the social networking website or application itself; rather, it is how someone identifies himself or herself when accessing a social networking account, whether it be with an electronic mail address or some other name or title, such as a screen name or user name. Defendant’s failure to disclose his use of Facebook is not a crime, rendering the indictment jurisdictionally defective … . People v Ellis, 2018 NY Slip Op 03873, Third Dept 5-31-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE SEX OFFENDER TO DISCLOSE HIS OR HER USE OF FACEBOOK, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE SEX OFFENDER DISCLOSE EMAIL ADDRESSES AND SCREEN NAMES (THIRD DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE SEX OFFENDER TO DISCLOSE HIS OR HER USE OF FACEBOOK, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE SEX OFFENDER DISCLOSE EMAIL ADDRESSES AND SCREEN NAMES (THIRD DEPT))/CORRECTION LAW  (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE SEX OFFENDER TO DISCLOSE HIS OR HER USE OF FACEBOOK, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE SEX OFFENDER DISCLOSE EMAIL ADDRESSES AND SCREEN NAMES (THIRD DEPT))/FACEBOOK (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE SEX OFFENDER TO DISCLOSE HIS OR HER USE OF FACEBOOK, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE SEX OFFENDER DISCLOSE EMAIL ADDRESSES AND SCREEN NAMES (THIRD DEPT))/SOCIAL NETWORKING (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE SEX OFFENDER TO DISCLOSE HIS OR HER USE OF FACEBOOK, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE SEX OFFENDER DISCLOSE EMAIL ADDRESSES AND SCREEN NAMES (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