You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over two dissenting opinions, determined (1) defendant, who wanted to question witnesses with the aid of standby counsel, did not make an unequivocal request to represent himself requiring a searching inquiry by the court, and (2) the defendant, who did not notify the People of his wish to present psychiatric testimony (required by CPL 250.10), was properly precluded from presenting psychiatric testimony for the purpose of calling into question the voluntariness of his confession:

Defendant urges that a court presented with a request to proceed pro se with “standby counsel” should make an in-depth inquiry whether defendant still desires to represent himself, once defendant is informed that dual representation will not be provided. We hold that further colloquy by the trial court is not constitutionally required when a defendant remains equivocal, despite having been informed by the court on more than one occasion that his right to self-representation includes a waiver of the right to an attorney, as here. When a defendant asks to proceed “pro se with standby counsel” and the trial court explains the scope of the right to proceed pro se, and specifically denies the defendant’s request for hybrid representation, the better practice would be to again ask the defendant if he or she still wants to proceed without counsel. Nevertheless, “[w]hile such inquiries may be the better practice, we will not compel courts to engage in any particular catechism” before denying an equivocal request to proceed pro se because “[n]either our Constitution nor our precedent requires it” … . * * *

Defendant narrowly construes the phrase “any other defense” in CPL 250.10 (1) (c) to be limited to psychiatric evidence offered in support of a complete defense to an element of the crime, such as mens rea; he does not interpret the statute to include a defense strategy to offer evidence that allows the jury to negate the prosecution’s evidence of guilt. As explained below, this argument ignores the legislative intent, our precedent espousing the very purpose of notice, and the fact that, if a defendant’s confession was the primary evidence of guilt and the defendant raises the issue of voluntariness at trial, then voluntariness could be a complete defense to the crime … . Notably, our Court has previously labeled a defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his statement pursuant to CPL 710.70 a “defense” … . People v Silburn, 2018 NY Slip Op 02286, CtApp 4-3-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PSYCHIATRIC OPINION, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/PSYCHIATRIC OPINION (CRIMINAL LAW,  DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/EXPERT OPINION (CRIMINAL LAW, PSYCHIATRIC OPINION, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY (CT APP))/NOTICE (CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 250.10, PSYCHIATRIC OPINION, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/CONFESSIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, VOLUNTARINESS, ,PSYCHIATRIC OPINION, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/WAIVER (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY (CT APP))/CPL 250.10  (CRIMINAL LAW, VOLUNTARINESS, ,PSYCHIATRIC OPINION, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP))/WAIVER (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY (CT APP))

, ,

BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel  because counsel, after defendant pled not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect, conceded defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder and thereby waived the required “track” hearing pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 330.20 (a “critical stage” of the proceedings):

… [A]fter a court accepts a not responsible plea, it must issue an examination order for the defendant to be examined by two qualified psychiatric examiners … , who must submit to the court a report of their findings and evaluation regarding defendant’s mental condition … .

Critical to this procedure is the requirement that the court conduct an initial hearing within 10 days after receipt of the psychiatric examination reports, in order to classify the defendant as “track one,” “track two,” or “track three” based on the defendant’s mental condition … . …

“The track designation places more dangerous acquittees under the purview of the Criminal Procedure Law, while less dangerous, though still mentally ill, acquittees are committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health and come under the supervision of the Mental Hygiene Law” … . …

At the initial hearing, the People bear the burden of proving “to the satisfaction of the court,” i.e., by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, that the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder or is mentally ill … .

The initial hearing under CPL 330.20(6) is “a critical stage” of proceedings at which the defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel … . …

… [C]ounsel rendered ineffective assistance when he conceded at the plea proceeding that defendant was a danger to himself and society, and waived defendant’s right to an initial hearing before reviewing the psychiatric examination reports which had not yet been prepared for the court. Further, at the proceeding that followed the issuance of the reports, counsel simply relied on the psychiatrists’ reports and deferred to the court’s discretion. He did not call any witnesses or seek to cross-examine the psychiatrists who prepared the reports. Nor did counsel consult an expert on defendant’s behalf who might have offered a contrasting opinion. People v Darryl T., 2018 NY Slip Op 02280, First Dept 3-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OR MENTAL DISEASE OF DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OR MENTAL DISEASE OF DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that a text message from defendant indicating he needed money “just in case for a lawyer” should not have been admitted in evidence in this homicide case. The error was deemed harmless however:

The People should not have been permitted to introduce, as evidence of defendant’s consciousness of guilt, a text exchange the day after the crime in which defendant indicated that he needed money “just in case for a lawyer.” This evidence was an improper infringement of defendant’s right to counsel … . However, under all the circumstances, including the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, which included the testimony of one of the victims, any error in the admission of the text exchange and related summation comment on it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt … . The circumstantial evidence was compelling, and it led to an inescapable inference that the deceased and surviving victims were shot by defendant, the only other occupant of the car in which the shootings took place. People v Suero, 2018 NY Slip Op 02269, First Dept 3-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))

TEN-YEAR, AS OPPOSED TO A FIVE-YEAR, PROBATION SENTENCE FOR A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION IS SUPPORTED BY THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined that the statutory language supported a ten-year, as opposed to a five-year, probation sentence for a youthful offender’s (Teri W’s) sexual abuse adjudication:

The version of [the] statute in effect when Teri W. committed her offense provided that “For a felony, other than a class A-II felony defined in article two hundred twenty of this chapter or the class B felony defined in section 220.48 of this chapter, or any other class B felony defined in article two hundred twenty of this chapter committed by a second felony drug offender, or a sexual assault, the period of probation shall be five years” … . Pursuant to the exception above, “[f]or a felony sexual assault, the period of probation shall be ten years” … . * * *

Because [the relevant] definition includes sex offenses that are class E felonies, a probation period of 10 years for a felony sexual assault is a sentence “authorized to be imposed upon a person convicted of a class E felony” … . Concordantly, Penal Law § 65.00 (3) (a) (i) exempts “sexual assaults” from the shorter probationary period applicable to non-sexual assault class E felonies. People v Teri W., 2018 NY Slip Op 02210, CtApp 3-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, TEN-YEAR, AS OPPOSED TO A FIVE-YEAR, PROBATION SENTENCE FOR A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION IS SUPPORTED BY THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE (CT APP))/SENTENCING (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, TEN-YEAR, AS OPPOSED TO A FIVE-YEAR, PROBATION SENTENCE FOR A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION IS SUPPORTED BY THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE (CT APP))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (TEN-YEAR, AS OPPOSED TO A FIVE-YEAR, PROBATION SENTENCE FOR A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION IS SUPPORTED BY THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE (CT APP))/SEXUAL OFFENSES (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, TEN-YEAR, AS OPPOSED TO A FIVE-YEAR, PROBATION SENTENCE FOR A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION IS SUPPORTED BY THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE (CT APP))PROBATION (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, SEXUAL OFFENSE, TEN-YEAR, AS OPPOSED TO A FIVE-YEAR, PROBATION SENTENCE FOR A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION IS SUPPORTED BY THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE (CT APP))

PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined placing the defendant in handcuffs improperly elevated an investigatory detention to an illegal arrest and the suppression motion should have been granted. The court noted that Supreme Court explicitly found that the detective did not have probable cause to arrest at the time of the handcuffing so the appellate court could not consider the People’s argument to the contrary:

During a buy and bust operation, the police made what the suppression court found to be an investigatory stop of defendant, based on reasonable suspicion, followed by a confirmatory identification that provided probable cause to arrest defendant for selling drugs. However, during the stop, but before the identification, the police handcuffed defendant because defendant was “a little irate” and the officer wanted to “make sure nothing escalated.

“Although the use of handcuffs is not dispositive of whether an investigatory detention on reasonable suspicion has been elevated to an arrest, handcuffing is permissible in such a detention only when justified by the circumstances”… . Here, defendant was not suspected of anything more than a street-level drug sale, the police had no reason to believe that he was armed, dangerous or likely to flee, and there was no indication on the record that defendant offered any resistance before he was handcuffed. That defendant was “a little irate” does not establish dangerousness or resistance that would justify the use of handcuffs during an investigatory stop … . People v Steinbergin, 2018 NY Slip Op 02123, First Dept 3-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/STREET STOPS  (PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/INVESTIGATORY STOP (PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE  (PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a short memorandum decision, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the record supported the trial court’s finding that the stop and search of the defendant, in an apartment building, met the DeBour street stop criteria:

Police were conducting a vertical patrol of a New York City Housing Authority building in a high crime area and interviewing tenants in search of a robbery suspect in an investigation unrelated to this case. Defendant got off the elevator, observed the police officers — who were approximately eight feet away with shields displayed — and immediately retreated into the elevator. Defendant ignored an officer’s request that he hold the door and instead “kept pushing the button” and the elevator doors closed. In light of this behavior, as well as the building’s history of narcotics and trespass activity, the police followed defendant to determine whether he lived in the building. Rather than respond to the officer’s questions, defendant turned away from the police to face the wall, held his head down with the hood of his sweatshirt over his head, and kept his hands hidden inside his sweatshirt. The officer immediately noticed a large bulge in defendant’s right arm, which defendant held stiffly and straight down from his body in an unnatural position. … When the officer touched the defendant’s wrist, he felt a metal object, lifted the sleeve of the defendant’s shirt, saw the point of a blade, and ordered him to “drop it.” Defendant did not comply and officers had to pull the weapon — a two-foot-long machete — from defendant’s shirt. Minutes later, the officer learned of a recent robbery in the area involving a machete-wielding suspect wearing clothing matching that worn by defendant.

The issue on appeal to this Court, whether the police conduct conformed to De Bour, presents a mixed question of law and fact …  Accordingly, “our review is limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts’ determinations” … . …  People v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 02118, CtApp 3-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOPS, THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/DEBOUR (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS,  THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS, MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))/MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS,  THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP))

MAJORITY DEEMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BB GUN POSSESSION CHARGE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE HANDGUN POSSESSION CHARGE TO THE JURY PROPER, STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION OF POSSESSION OF THE BB GUN TAINTED THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, over a comprehensive two-judge dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, affirmed defendant’s conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon. Defendant was charged with possession of a BB gun and a handgun (Taurus). The judge dismissed the BB gun charge prior to submission of the handgun charge to the jury:

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the non-inclusory charge of unlawful possession of an air pistol or rifle which related to the BB gun … . The jury was free to credit defendant’s theory that he possessed the BB gun but not the Taurus firearm that was also recovered in his vicinity — which was the subject of separate weapon possession counts. Contrary to defendant’s contention, his defense that he never possessed the Taurus firearm was not removed from consideration when the trial court dismissed the charge related to the BB gun, nor did defendant argue in the trial court that the dismissal of the BB gun count impaired his constitutional right to present a defense.

From the dissent:

The trial court abused its discretion when it did not submit the unlawful possession of an air pistol count to the jury and submitted instead only the more serious counts relating to the possession of a handgun. This error allowed the jury to consider highly prejudicial testimony completely irrelevant to the counts submitted, including defendant’s admission of guilt to the possession of the air pistol. So doing, the trial court encouraged reverse jury nullification and provoked confusion in the jury’s deliberative process.  People v Boyd, 2018 NY Slip Op 02120, CtApp 3-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MAJORITY DEEMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BB GUN POSSESSION CHARGE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE HANDGUN POSSESSION CHARGE TO THE JURY PROPER, STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION OF POSSESSION OF THE BB GUN TAINTED THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE (CT APP))/JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY CONFUSION, (MAJORITY DEEMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BB GUN POSSESSION CHARGE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE HANDGUN POSSESSION CHARGE TO THE JURY PROPER, STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION OF POSSESSION OF THE BB GUN TAINTED THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE (CT APP))/WEAPON, POSSESSION OF (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY CONFUSION, (MAJORITY DEEMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BB GUN POSSESSION CHARGE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE HANDGUN POSSESSION CHARGE TO THE JURY PROPER, STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION OF POSSESSION OF THE BB GUN TAINTED THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE (CT APP))/BB GUN (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY CONFUSION, (MAJORITY DEEMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BB GUN POSSESSION CHARGE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE HANDGUN POSSESSION CHARGE TO THE JURY PROPER, STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION OF POSSESSION OF THE BB GUN TAINTED THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE (CT APP))/HANDGUN (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY CONFUSION, (MAJORITY DEEMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BB GUN POSSESSION CHARGE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE HANDGUN POSSESSION CHARGE TO THE JURY PROPER, STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION OF POSSESSION OF THE BB GUN TAINTED THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE (CT APP))

, ,

ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ADMISSIONS TO THE COMMISSION OF UNRELATED CRIMES WAS DEEMED A VALID DEFENSE STRATEGY, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR LETTING THE EVIDENCE COME IN, STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a strong two-justice dissent, affirmed defendant’s murder conviction despite the introduction of highly prejudicial evidence of unrelated crimes and defense counsel’s failure to object to that inadmissible propensity evidence. The majority decided not to address the inadmissible propensity evidence because defense counsel did not object to it (error not preserved for appeal). The majority further determined that allowing the jury to hear the inadmissible propensity evidence was a valid defense strategy (painting the admission to the charged crime and other crimes as merely tough talk):

We conclude, contrary to the view of our dissenting colleagues, that defendant received effective assistance of counsel. It is well settled that “a reviewing court must avoid confusing true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics’ ” … . It “is not for [the] court to second-guess whether a course chosen by defendant’s counsel was the best trial strategy, or even a good one, so long as defendant was afforded meaningful representation” … . Crucially, we note that the evidence in question is the very same evidence upon which defendant relied to establish his defense at trial. The defense theory of the case, as articulated in defense counsel’s summation, was that defendant did not kill the victim; he was merely “talking tough” because he was afraid of being in jail. Indeed, as defendant told the investigators, he was just “trying to sound bigger than he really was.” Defense counsel urged the jury to find defendant’s statements unworthy of belief because defendant was frightened and “puffing.” In an effort to deflect the jury’s attention from defendant’s admissions to the charged crime, defense counsel made a deliberate choice, as a matter of trial strategy, to leave those admissions in the context of the gratuitous boasting in which they arose. Although the evidence in question would have been excludable upon a motion by defendant, we conclude that the evidence was consistent with the defense strategy. Moreover, the redaction of such material from the letter and audio recording would have highlighted defendant’s confession to the [charged] homicide. In other words, extracting defendant’s admissions from the extraneous talk that was consistent with the puffing defense would have undercut the defense theory and focused the jury’s attention on defendant’s admissions of guilt. People v Anderson, 2018 NY Slip Op 02105, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ADMISSIONS TO THE COMMISSION OF UNRELATED CRIMES WAS DEEMED A VALID DEFENSE STRATEGY, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR LETTING THE EVIDENCE COME IN, STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, UNCHARGED CRIMES, ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ADMISSIONS TO THE COMMISSION OF UNRELATED CRIMES WAS DEEMED A VALID DEFENSE STRATEGY, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR LETTING THE EVIDENCE COME IN, STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/UNCHARGED CRIMES (ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ADMISSIONS TO THE COMMISSION OF UNRELATED CRIMES WAS DEEMED A VALID DEFENSE STRATEGY, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR LETTING THE EVIDENCE COME IN, STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/PROPENSITY EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, UNCHARGED CRIMES, ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ADMISSIONS TO THE COMMISSION OF UNRELATED CRIMES WAS DEEMED A VALID DEFENSE STRATEGY, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR LETTING THE EVIDENCE COME IN, STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ADMISSIONS TO THE COMMISSION OF UNRELATED CRIMES WAS DEEMED A VALID DEFENSE STRATEGY, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR LETTING THE EVIDENCE COME IN, STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ADMISSIONS TO THE COMMISSION OF UNRELATED CRIMES WAS DEEMED A VALID DEFENSE STRATEGY, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR LETTING THE EVIDENCE COME IN, STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA BASED ON THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER BRADY MATERIAL, A DEFENDANT DOES NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO ASSERT A BRADY VIOLATION BY PLEADING GUILTY (OVERRULING PRECEDENT) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea based upon the People’s failure to disclose the autopsy and toxicology reports relating to the two persons on a motorcycle who died after colliding with defendant’s truck. The reports indicated high blood alcohol levels. The Fourth Department noted that the reports constituted Brady material and held that a defendant does not waive a Brady violation by pleading guilty. Prior Fourth Department decisions to the contrary are no longer to be followed:

… [W]e reject the People’s contention that defendant forfeited his right to raise the alleged Brady violation by pleading guilty … . Brady is premised upon considerations of fairness and due process … , and we conclude that it would undermine the prosecutor’s Brady obligations if a defendant is deemed to have forfeited his or her right to raise an alleged Brady violation by entering a plea without the knowledge that the People possessed exculpatory evidence… . To the extent that our prior decisions hold that a defendant, by pleading guilty, forfeits the right to raise an alleged Brady violation (see e.g. People v Brockway, 148 AD3d 1815, 1816 [4th Dept 2017]; People v Chant, 140 AD3d 1645, 1648 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 970 [2016]; People v Chinn, 104 AD3d 1167, 1168 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1014 [2013]), they are no longer to be followed. …

We reject the People’s contention that the reports do not contain exculpatory material and that they were thus under no obligation to disclose them. Rather, we agree with defendant that evidence of the motorcycle operator’s intoxication is relevant with respect to the cause of the fatal accident and defendant’s culpability therefor and, here, the toxicology report states that two blood samples obtained from the motorcycle operator indicated blood alcohol concentrations of .081 and .098. Moreover, the exculpatory value of that evidence is enhanced by defendant’s initial account of the accident to State Police officers at the scene, wherein defendant asserted that the accident occurred when the motorcycle was passing another vehicle and suddenly appeared “right in front of him.” People v Wilson, 2018 NY Slip Op 02106, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA BASED ON THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER BRADY MATERIAL, A DEFENDANT DOES NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO ASSERT A BRADY VIOLATION BY PLEADING GUILTY (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA BASED ON THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER BRADY MATERIAL, A DEFENDANT DOES NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO ASSERT A BRADY VIOLATION BY PLEADING GUILTY (FOURTH DEPT))/BRADY MATERIAL  (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA BASED ON THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER BRADY MATERIAL, A DEFENDANT DOES NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO ASSERT A BRADY VIOLATION BY PLEADING GUILTY (FOURTH DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW (BRADY VIOLATION DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA BASED ON THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER BRADY MATERIAL, A DEFENDANT DOES NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO ASSERT A BRADY VIOLATION BY PLEADING GUILTY (FOURTH DEPT))

,

HEARING REQUIRED ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUES WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE, DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS WHETHER FALSE TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY A POLICE OFFICER AND WHETHER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing should have been held on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, even though the issues were raised or could have been raised in a prior motion to vacate. The defendant presented evidence that defendant’s cell phone was pinged, not defendant’s girlfriend’s cell phone. Therefore defendant had standing to challenge the pinging of the cell phone. The defendant’s motion raised the issue whether a police officer lied when he testified the girlfriend’s cell phone was pinged, and whether evidence that the girlfriend’s phone was broken at the relevant time (presented to the grand jury) was withheld from the defendant:

… [D]efendant submitted police reports wherein the officer who had testified at the suppression hearing (testifying officer) stated that law enforcement officers were “pinging” a phone that belonged to defendant. Defendant further submitted affidavits from the minor [his girlfriend] and her grandmother, who had sought the aid of law enforcement, indicating that the minor’s phone had broken days before the police action and that they had informed the testifying officer and prosecutor of that fact either the day on which the police pinged the cell phone or, at the very least, at some date before the suppression hearing. Indeed, the minor averred that she had testified before the grand jury that her phone had broken and that defendant’s cell phone was the only phone that she and defendant had used during the relevant time period. Defendant contends that the minor’s grand jury testimony constituted exculpatory evidence that was not disclosed to the defense despite a specific request therefor.

It is well settled that prosecutors have the duty “not only to disclose exculpatory or impeaching evidence but also to correct the knowingly false or mistaken material testimony of a prosecution witness”… . Defendant has submitted credible documentary evidence establishing that the testifying officer’s testimony at the suppression hearing was false and that the prosecutor knew or should have known that the testimony was false … . Moreover, defendant has submitted credible documentary evidence establishing that the prosecutor failed to disclose material, exculpatory evidence … . People v Reed, 2018 NY Slip Op 02068, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

CRIMINAL LAW (HEARING REQUIRED ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUES WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE, DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS WHETHER FALSE TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY A POLICE OFFICER AND WHETHER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, HEARING REQUIRED ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUES WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE, DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS WHETHER FALSE TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY A POLICE OFFICER AND WHETHER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (HEARING REQUIRED ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUES WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE, DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS WHETHER FALSE TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY A POLICE OFFICER AND WHETHER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT))/BRADY MATERIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, HEARING REQUIRED ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUES WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE, DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS WHETHER FALSE TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY A POLICE OFFICER AND WHETHER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT))/FALSE TESTIMONY (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, HEARING REQUIRED ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUES WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE, DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS WHETHER FALSE TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY A POLICE OFFICER AND WHETHER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (CRIMINAL LAW, FALSE TESTIMONY, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, HEARING REQUIRED ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUES WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE, DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS WHETHER FALSE TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY A POLICE OFFICER AND WHETHER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT))/PROSECUTORS (FALSE TESTIMONY, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, HEARING REQUIRED ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUES WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE, DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS WHETHER FALSE TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY A POLICE OFFICER AND WHETHER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE (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