You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant demonstrated his attorney never informed him the plea included an aggravated felony which made deportation mandatory:

A defendant has the right to the effective assistance of counsel before deciding whether to plead guilty … . “Under the federal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his or her attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different'” … . “Under the state standard . . . the constitutional requirements for the effective assistance of counsel are met when the defense attorney provides meaningful representation'”… . In cases asserting ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea context, a defendant must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he [or she] would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial”… , or “that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different” … .

Here, the defendant sufficiently alleged that defense counsel failed to fully inform him that a plea of guilty exposed him to mandatory removal from the United States and that, had he been so advised, a decision to reject the plea offer would have been rational … . People v Hungria, 2018 NY Slip Op 03545, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE  (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT))

ALTERNATE JUROR’S PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department ordered a new trial for the defendant because an alternate juror deliberated with the other jurors. The trial judge attempted to fix the problem by having the jurors agree to start over and disregard the prior deliberations:

During the trial in this matter, an alternate juror briefly participated in deliberations with 11 sworn members of the jury while the12th sworn juror was absent from the jury room. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for a mistrial. The court then questioned each of the jurors about their ability to disregard the prior deliberations and start deliberations anew; each juror assured the court that he or she could do so. The court then denied the defendant’s renewed motion for a mistrial, and instructed the jurors that all deliberations that had taken place with the alternate juror were a nullity which must be disregarded by the jury, and that deliberations were to start “fresh, anew, ab initio, from the beginning.” After deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The defendant appeals.

The New York Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant a trial by jury … . The constitutional right to a jury trial “includes the right to a jury of 12” … . Pursuant to CPL 270.30, after the jury has retired to deliberate, the court must either, (1) with the consent of the defendant and the People, discharge the alternate jurors, or (2) direct the alternate jurors not to discuss the case and further direct that they be kept separate and apart from the regular jurors. CPL 310.10 prohibits anyone, including alternate jurors, from communicating with deliberating jurors.

The error here not only violated CPL 270.30 and 310.10, but it deprived the defendant of his fundamental right to a trial by a jury of 12 … .  The error was not cured by the Supreme Court’s instructions to the reconstituted jury. People v Davis, 2018 NY Slip Op 03539, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, ALTERNATE JUROR’S PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTERNATE JUROR’S PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/ALTERNATE JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTERNATE JUROR’S PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/DELIBERATIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, ALTERNATE JUROR’S PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

,

WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL RECORD OF HUSBAND’S ALLEGED ASSAULT AGAINST HER IN THESE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, HUSBAND WAS GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AND DID NOT PLACE THE CRIMINAL MATTER IN ISSUE, THE RECORD WAS SEALED BY OPERATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the wife’s request, in this divorce proceeding, to unseal the record of her husband’s criminal proceedings was properly denied. The husband had been charged with an assault against the wife, and the proceedings terminated favorably to the husband (he was granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal). The record was therefore sealed by operation of statute (Criminal Procedure Law (CPL)160.50):

By “provid[ing] for the sealing of records in a criminal proceeding which terminates in favor of the accused” … ,CPL 160.50 “serves the laudable goal of insuring that one who is charged but not convicted of an offense suffers no stigma as a result of his [or her] having once been the object of an unsustained accusation” … . It is undisputed that the charges against the husband related to the December 2015 incident were “deemed dismissed as a result of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal and, therefore, the records of that criminal prosecution were sealed” … . The wife does not claim that any statutory exception entitles her to the records. Her primary contention is instead that the husband, by denying the alleged behavior that led to the charges, waived the statutory bulwark against disclosure by “commenc[ing] a civil action and affirmatively plac[ing] the information protected by CPL 160.50 into issue”… ..

The wife’s argument founders upon the fact that it was she, not the husband, who has “place[d] in issue elements that are common or related to the prior criminal action” by alleging the husband’s assaultive conduct … . Prag v Prag, 2018 NY Slip Op 03414, Third Dept 5-10-18

​FAMILY LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, SEALING OF RECORD, WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL RECORD OF HUSBAND’S ALLEGED ASSAULT AGAINST HER IN THESE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, HUSBAND WAS GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AND DID NOT PLACE THE CRIMINAL MATTER IN ISSUE, THE RECORD WAS SEALED BY OPERATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY LAW, SEALING OF RECORD OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL RECORD OF HUSBAND’S ALLEGED ASSAULT AGAINST HER IN THESE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, HUSBAND WAS GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AND DID NOT PLACE THE CRIMINAL MATTER IN ISSUE, THE RECORD WAS SEALED BY OPERATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (THIRD DEPT))/SEALING (CRIMINAL LAW, WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL RECORD OF HUSBAND’S ALLEGED ASSAULT AGAINST HER IN THESE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, HUSBAND WAS GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AND DID NOT PLACE THE CRIMINAL MATTER IN ISSUE, THE RECORD WAS SEALED BY OPERATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (THIRD DEPT))

,

POLICE ENTRY INTO A SINGLE USE BATHROOM IN A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTED A SEARCH, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE CONCLUSION THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant had an expectation of privacy in a single-use bathroom in an adult bookstore, His suppression motion should not, therefore, have been denied on the ground the police entry into the bathroom was not a search. The matter was remitted for consideration of the issue raised by the People at the suppression hearing which was not ruled on by Supreme Court:

The court erred in denying defendant’s suppression motion on the ground that the police entrance into a single-use restroom located in an adult film and novelty store was not a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. We conclude that, once he closed the door, defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy while using the small, single-use restroom because at that point he was “entitled to assume that while inside he … will not be viewed by others” … . The closed door of the restroom was comparable to closed bathroom stalls in public restrooms, where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists … . This expectation of privacy was not negated by the facts that the restroom was located in a commercial establishment and was unlocked … .

In the alternative, the People argue, as they did at the hearing, that the police entrance into the restroom was reasonable because it was based on probable cause to suspect that there was drug use occurring inside. However, because “the hearing court did not rule on this issue in denying the suppression motion, and therefore did not rule adversely against defendant on this point, we may not reach it on this appeal” … . Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand for determination, based on the hearing minutes, of the issue raised at the hearing, but not decided … . People v Vinson, 2018 NY Slip Op 03437, First Dept 5-10-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH AND SEIZURE, EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, POLICE ENTRY INTO A SINGLE USE BATHROOM IN A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTED A SEARCH, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE CONCLUSION THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, POLICE ENTRY INTO A SINGLE USE BATHROOM IN A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTED A SEARCH, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE CONCLUSION THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH AND SEIZURE, EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, POLICE ENTRY INTO A SINGLE USE BATHROOM IN A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTED A SEARCH, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE CONCLUSION THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT))/EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY (SEARCH AND SEIZURE, POLICE ENTRY INTO A SINGLE USE BATHROOM IN A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTED A SEARCH, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE CONCLUSION THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT))

,

INDICTMENT COUNT CHARGING 20 INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF CONTEMPT WAS DUPLICITOUS, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the indictment which charged 20 individual crimes (contempt) in a single count was duplicitous:

The criminal contempt count was duplicitous because defendant’s acts of violating an order of protection by regularly but briefly showing up at the victim’s apartment, over the course of about a month and 20 days, constituted distinct crimes that were required to be alleged in separate counts … .

Defendant preserved this argument by moving to dismiss that count on the same ground in his omnibus motion, which the court denied … and we find the People’s arguments on the issue of preservation unavailing. The defect was in the language of the indictment itself, and it did not depend on the trial evidence or the court’s charge. People v Villalon, 2018 NY Slip Op 03431, First Dept 5-10-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (INDICTMENT COUNT CHARGING 20 INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF CONTEMPT WAS DUPLICITOUS, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/DUPLICITOUS (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENT COUNT CHARGING 20 INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF CONTEMPT WAS DUPLICITOUS, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (DUPLICITOUS, INDICTMENT COUNT CHARGING 20 INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF CONTEMPT WAS DUPLICITOUS, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))

,

WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO A METH LAB JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, DANGER TO OCCUPANTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the police officer’s (Tobias’s) warrantless entry into a garage which was being used as a meth lab was justified by the emergency doctrine. The officer saw smoke coming from a broken window in the garage and recognized the odor associated with meth production. The officer testified his fear of an explosion and the related danger to the occupants was the reason he entered the garage:

Tobias’ testimony established that his primary reason for entering the garage was not to arrest defendant or to seize evidence. … Tobias testified that, because he knew “[m]eth labs [to be] dangerous” and to pose a “risk of explosions and fires,” both of his entries into the garage were motivated by his concern for the safety of anyone who may have remained inside … . … [W]e find that Tobias’ warrantless entries into the garage were justified by the emergency doctrine … . People v Alberts, 2018 NY Slip Op 03393 [161 AD3d 1298], Third Dept 5-10-18

suppression, suppress

,

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child based upon a theory that was not charged in the indictment. The endangering count of the indictment alleged defendant had subjected the victim to several types of sexual touching, but not kissing. The jury was allowed to consider the evidence of kissing. The defendant was acquitted of all counts except the endangering count:

In summation, the People argued, over objection, that the defendant’s guilt of endangering the welfare of a child was established by the conduct of kissing the complainant. The Supreme Court then instructed the jury, over objection, that in order to find the defendant guilty of endangering the welfare of a child under the relevant count, the jurors were required to find that the defendant knowingly acted in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of the complainant, a child less than 17 years old, by engaging in sexual contact with her, defined, under the general definition in the Penal Law, as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party” … . The jury returned a verdict of guilty on that count, and acquitted the defendant of the other counts submitted to it, which charged the defendant, inter alia, with engaging in vaginal and anal intercourse with the complainant.

Where the prosecution is limited by the indictment or bill of particulars to a certain theory or theories, the court must hold the prosecution to such narrower theory or theories … . Here, the defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child under a count of the indictment that limited the People to a particular theory or theories of endangering the welfare of a child. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred when it permitted the jury to consider a theory not charged in the indictment—that kissing endangered the complainant’s welfare … . Since the defendant’s conviction may have been based upon an uncharged theory, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. People v Vasquez, 2018 NY Slip Op 03382, Second Dept 5-9-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (INDICTMENTS, EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENTS, DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the manslaughter and negligent homicide convictions, over a dissent, determined that those convictions, although supported by legally sufficient evidence, were against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, whose blood alcohol level was .12, caused a highway traffic accident. Several drivers stopped and a police officer was at the scene. Another driver, who was in traffic passing by the stopped cars and the police officer, struck a car and the police officer was killed. The Second Department found that the accident in which the officer was killed, which occurred a substantial amount of time after defendant’s accident, was not “temporally proximate” to the defendant’s conduct:

… [T]he People adduced legally sufficient evidence that the defendant’s actions set in motion the events that led to the death of the police officer, and that the defendant’s conduct was a sufficiently direct cause of that result. It was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s conduct, including driving while intoxicated, causing the initial collision, failing to stop after the initial collision, and causing a second collision, would cause a dangerous condition on the roadway that would pose a danger to police or other first responders, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the incidents and prior to the securing of the accident scene… . The People adduced legally sufficient evidence of causation as to the counts of manslaughter in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, aggravated criminally negligent homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. …

However, the jury verdict as to the manslaughter and homicide counts was against the weight of the evidence. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence … , we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor … . Here, the verdict as to the manslaughter and homicide counts was against the weight of the evidence, particularly in light of the evidence that the driver of the SUV that struck the police officer failed to pay attention to conditions on the roadway, including the presence of multiple stopped vehicles and debris on the road, and approached the accident scene at a speed in excess of the speed at which other vehicles were traveling … . People v Ryan, 2018 NY Slip Op 03380, Second Dept 5-9-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICULAR HOMICIDE (ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PLACED DEFENDANT IN A JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN THIS COCAINE-SALE CASE, CRITERIA AND PURPOSE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have placed defendant in a judicial diversion program in this cocaine-sale case. Defendant’s need for money to support his marijuana use qualified him for diversion, despite his prior completion of a drug treatment program:

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to participate in the judicial diversion program. The court based this determination on the erroneous ground that defendant had failed to establish that his “substance abuse or dependence [wa]s a contributing factor to [his] criminal behavior” (CPL 216.05[3][b][iii]). “The statute does not require that a defendant’s . . . substance abuse or dependence be the exclusive or primary cause of the defendant’s criminal behavior,” but “only requires that it be a contributing factor” … . In this case, defendant pleaded guilty to selling cocaine to an undercover police officer for $300, and was found carrying that amount in prerecorded buy money, an additional $880 in cash, and three cell phones. Defendant reported that his heavy use of marijuana cost him about $50 to $60 per day. In light of these facts and other particular circumstances of this case, defendant’s need for enough money to fund that habit evidently contributed to his criminal behavior of selling cocaine.

Accordingly, the court should order judicial diversion pursuant to CPL article 216, giving due recognition to the drug treatment program defendant has already completed. This result is consistent with one of the purposes of judicial diversion, which is to permit a defendant to achieve a disposition other than a felony conviction, where appropriate. People v Alston, 2018 NY Slip Op 03324, First Dept 5-8-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DIVERSION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PLACED DEFENDANT IN A JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN THIS COCAINE-SALE CASE, CRITERIA AND PURPOSE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/JUDICIAL DIVERSION (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PLACED DEFENDANT IN A JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN THIS COCAINE-SALE CASE, CRITERIA AND PURPOSE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/DIVERSION (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PLACED DEFENDANT IN A JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN THIS COCAINE-SALE CASE, CRITERIA AND PURPOSE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/SENTENCING (JUDICIAL DIVERSION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PLACED DEFENDANT IN A JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN THIS COCAINE-SALE CASE, CRITERIA AND PURPOSE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion, reversed the Appellate Division and sent the matter back to the Appellate Division for a factual determination whether the trial judge’s credibility assessment of a spectator who claimed to have overheard jurors speaking about the defendant in derogatory terms was supported by the weight of the evidence. After questioning the spectator the trial judge determined no further inquiry was required. The Appellate Division reversed defendant’s conviction over a dissent:

… [W]e are asked to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it chose not to conduct an inquiry of two sworn jurors pursuant to People v Buford (69 NY2d 290 [1987]). Alerted to a complaint by a courtroom spectator that during a break in the trial the spectator allegedly overheard the jurors refer to defendant by a derogatory term, the trial court immediately called the spectator to the stand and elicited sworn testimony regarding her allegation. At the conclusion of the examination, the judge determined that a Buford inquiry was not required based on the testimony provided. We conclude on this record that the trial court made an implied credibility finding that the spectator was not worthy of belief and therefore a Buford inquiry was not warranted. This determination by the trial court was not reviewed by the Appellate Division. It was error for the Appellate Division to opine as to what remedy was warranted in response to the content of the spectator’s allegation, without determining whether the allegation was credible in the first instance. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Division order and remit the case to that Court to exercise its own fact-finding power to consider and determine whether the trial court’s finding as to the spectator’s credibility was supported by the weight of the evidence. * * *

If, on remittal, the Appellate Division finds, upon its own factual review, that the record supports the trial court’s determination that the spectator lacked credibility, no further action was required. If the Appellate Division finds that the credibility determination was not supported, it must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in not taking further action … . … [A] credible allegation that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve or engaged in substantial misconduct within the meaning of CPL 270.35 cannot be ignored by the trial court, and failure to appropriately remedy the matter is reversible error. People v Kuzdzal, 2018 NY Slip Op 03304, CtApp 5-8-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, BIAS, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (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