You are here: / 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).

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))

,

BRIEF QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ON A REPRESENTED MATTER WAS SEPARABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW FROM THE QUESTIONING ON AN UNREPRESENTED MATTER (CT APP).

In a brief memorandum, reversing the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals determined brief questioning of defendant on a matter on which defendant was represented by counsel was separable as a matter of law from the interrogation on an unrepresented matter. There was no discussion of the facts of the case:

… [T]he impermissible questioning of defendant on a represented matter was so brief, flippant, and minimal that it was discrete and fairly separable as a matter of law from the interrogation of defendant on an unrepresented matter (see People v Cohen , 90 NY2d 632, 641 [1997]). People v Silvagnoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 04276, CtApp 6-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (BRIEF QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ON A REPRESENTED MATTER WAS SEPARABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW FROM THE QUESTIONING ON AN UNREPRESENTED MATTER (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, BRIEF QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ON A REPRESENTED MATTER WAS SEPARABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW FROM THE QUESTIONING ON AN UNREPRESENTED MATTER (CT APP))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (BRIEF QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ON A REPRESENTED MATTER WAS SEPARABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW FROM THE QUESTIONING ON AN UNREPRESENTED MATTER (CT APP))

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s right to counsel was not violated when he was questioned about a murder while he was represented on an unrelated marijuana charge. Defendant was stopped for traffic violations and arrested when marijuana was found in the car he was driving, a black Hyundai with tinted windows.  An attorney was assigned for the marijuana charge.  A BlackBerry found in the car was subsequently traced to a robbery where a black Hyundai with tinted windows was seen. According to a witness to a shooting, unrelated to the robbery, the shooter arrived and sped away in a black Hyundai with tinted windows. Defendant, when he was represented only on the marijuana charge, was questioned about the robbery and the murder and admitted to being the get-away driver. Supreme Court allowed defendant’s statement about the murder in evidence and defendant was convicted of murder. The Appellate Division held that the statement about the murder should have been suppressed because the robbery and the marijuana charge were related and Supreme Court had suppressed the statement about the robbery. The Court of Appeals held that the proper analysis required looking at the marijuana charge and the murder, not the marijuana charge and the robbery. Because the marijuana charge was completely unrelated to the murder, questioning about the murder did not violate defendant’s right to counsel:

​Under Cohen [90 NY2d 632] the relevant comparison is between the unrepresented and the represented charges. The first category concerns whether “questioning on the unrepresented matter would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel”… . The purpose of the rule is to protect the right to counsel once it has attached; if the questioning on the unrepresented charge will inevitably lead to statements about the represented charge, the statements should be suppressed. However, if the relationship between the unrepresented and the represented charges is insufficient, then “discrete questioning [on the unrepresented charge] by a police officer mindful and respectful of the indelible attachment of defendant’s right to counsel [on the represented charge] would not [] create[] any serious risk of incriminating responses as to the latter crime[]” … . Thus, the question the Appellate Division should have considered is whether the murder charge was sufficiently related to the marijuana charge. No evidence in the record would support that claim; indeed, even [defendant] does not press it. People v Henry, 2018 NY Slip Op 04275, CtApp 6-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL ( ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENTS, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, LTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))

,

DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the portion of defendant’s videotaped statement that was allowed in evidence should have been suppressed, and the jury should not have heard defendant’s grand jury testimony because he was not competent to testify at the time:

… [T]he court erred in suppressing only a portion of his videotaped statement to police investigators inasmuch as the portion of the statement that the court refused to suppress was also obtained prior to the administration of Miranda warnings. Although the court properly determined that defendant was in custody from the outset of the interview, we conclude that the court erred in determining that Miranda warnings were not required before defendant admitted to having a foot fetish inasmuch as “the facts indicated that an interrogational environment existed” from the outset of the interview … . …

Although a defendant is presumed to be competent to testify before the grand jury … , here, we conclude that defendant rebutted that presumption. Indeed, defendant’s grand jury testimony, a rambling, delusional and bizarre narrative of government conspiracy, prompted one grand juror to inquire of defendant whether he had any psychiatric diagnoses. Within days of his testimony at the grand jury, the arraigning court referred defendant for a CPL article 730 psychiatric examination based upon what the court described as “confused, or bizarre behavior” and the inability “to understand charges or court processes.” Shortly thereafter, two psychiatric examiners found that defendant lacked capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense based upon a diagnosis of Delusional Disorder, Paranoid Type. As a result, defendant was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility under the auspices of the Office of Mental Health. We thus conclude that defendant rebutted the presumption of competence, and that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to preclude the grand jury testimony … . People v Perri, 2018 NY Slip Op 04134, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PRE-MIRANDA, DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/MIRANDA (CRIMINAL LAW, PRE-MIRANDA, DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/GRAND JURY (DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/COMPETENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS IN AN APARTMENT LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for possession of a controlled substance, determined the circumstantial evidence of constructive possession of the drugs found in an apartment was legally insufficient:​

Although defendant was present in the apartment at the time when the police executed the search warrant, “no evidence was presented to establish that defendant was an occupant of the apartment or that [she] regularly frequented it”… . The People relied primarily on the trial testimony of a police investigator, who testified that defendant was listed in the records management system of the Utica Police Department (UPD) as living at the apartment. The investigator acknowledged on cross-examination, however, that he did not know how the UPD obtained that information and that the information in the records management system is not always current or even accurate. The investigator also testified that he surveilled the building in which the apartment was located “hundreds” of times over the course of a three-week investigation, and that he observed defendant “at that location” only twice. Although the investigator testified that “typical women’s clothing” was found in the apartment, he failed to offer specifics except for three pairs of footwear, which he believed might fit defendant. By contrast, he testified in detail about men’s underwear and men’s deodorant found in a dresser drawer, men’s work boots piled near the dresser, and men’s sweatshirts hanging over a couch. Photographs of the clothing were received in evidence, and those photographs did not depict any “typical women’s clothing,” with the possible exception of one or two pairs of footwear. People v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 04173, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS IN AN APARTMENT LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS IN AN APARTMENT LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, (EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS IN AN APARTMENT LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ALLEGATIONS IN HIS MOTIONS TO VACATE HIS CONVICTIONS, EVEN THOSE ALLEGATIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motions to vacate his convictions on ineffective assistance grounds. The Fourth Department noted that, where some of the allegations of ineffective assistance are outside the record, a hearing on a motion to vacate can encompass all allegations of ineffective assistance, even those which could have been raised on appeal:

Where, as here, “an ineffective assistance of counsel claim involves . . . mixed claims’ relating to both record-based and nonrecord-based issues . . . [, such] claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding, whether or not the [defendant] could have raised the claim on direct appeal” … . In such situations, i.e., where the “claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside of the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety” … . That is because “each alleged shortcoming or failure by defense counsel should not be viewed as a separate ground or issue raised upon the motion’ . . . Rather, a defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a single ground or issue upon which relief is requested’ “.. . In other words, “such a claim constitutes a single, unified claim that must be assessed in totality” … . …

… “[D]efendant established that there were sufficient questions of fact . . . whether [trial counsel] had an adequate explanation’ for [her] failure to pursue certain lines of defense on cross-examination or for [her] failure to call an expert on defendant’s behalf, and defendant is therefore entitled to an opportunity to establish that [he] was deprived of meaningful legal representation’ ” … . For example, defense counsel failed to address at trial evidence in the medical records that tended to disprove allegations of penetration. We also note that defendant presented sworn allegations supporting his contention that DNA buccal swabs were taken from him by the use of excessive force. Such an allegation, if true, would support suppression of the damaging DNA evidence had such a motion been made … . No such motion was made, and “[s]uch a failure, in the absence of a reasonable explanation for it, is hard to reconcile with a defendant’s constitutional right to . . . effective assistance of counsel” … . People v Wilson, 2018 NY Slip Op 04233, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

CRIMINAL LAW (VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ALLEGATIONS IN HIS MOTIONS TO VACATE HIS CONVICTIONS, EVEN THOSE ALLEGATIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ALLEGATIONS IN HIS MOTIONS TO VACATE HIS CONVICTIONS, EVEN THOSE ALLEGATIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ALLEGATIONS IN HIS MOTIONS TO VACATE HIS CONVICTIONS, EVEN THOSE ALLEGATIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ALLEGATIONS IN HIS MOTIONS TO VACATE HIS CONVICTIONS, EVEN THOSE ALLEGATIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO ( INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ALLEGATIONS IN HIS MOTIONS TO VACATE HIS CONVICTIONS, EVEN THOSE ALLEGATIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH 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