You are here: / Criminal Law

INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFINITION OF ‘BUILDING’ REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS BURGLARY PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial because the court did not properly instruct the jury on the definition of a “building” within the meaning of the burglary statute:

​

… “[T]he court instructed the jurors that a dwelling is a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night. A bedroom in a home, where there is more than one tenant, may be considered independent of the rest of the house and may be considered a separate dwelling within a building.’ The court, however, failed to include the part of the definition of building that would require the jury to determine whether the house at issue consisted of two or more units’ and whether the bedroom at issue was a unit that was separately secured or occupied’ (Penal Law § 140.00 [2]). Consequently, given the omission of the definition of [“unit”] and/or [“separately secured or occupied,”] the instruction did not adequately convey the meaning of [“building”] to the jury and instead created a great likelihood of confusion such that the degree of precision required for a jury charge was not met’ ” … . People v Downey, 2018 NY Slip Op 00758, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFINITION OF ‘BUILDING’ REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS BURGLARY PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, BURGLARY, (INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFINITION OF ‘BUILDING’ REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS BURGLARY PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT))/BURGLARY (JURY INSTRUCTIONS, INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFINITION OF ‘BUILDING’ REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS BURGLARY PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT))/BUILDING (DEFINITION, BURGLARY STATUTE, INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFINITION OF ‘BUILDING’ REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS BURGLARY PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT))

PETITION TO PROHIBIT RETRIAL OF A MANSLAUGHTER COUNT DENIED, ALTHOUGH THE FOURTH DEPT DISMISSED THE COUNT AFTER DETERMINING THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AGREEING THAT THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, HELD THAT THE PEOPLE COULD SEEK A SECOND INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department dismissed an Article 78 petition seeking to prohibit retrial in a manslaughter case. The Fourth Department had dismissed the manslaughter count after determining the verdict was repugnant. The Court of Appeals agreed the verdict was repugnant but held that dismissal of the was not required:

​

Petitioner was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime … and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree … . On appeal from the judgment of conviction, we determined that the verdict convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime yet acquitting him of manslaughter in the first degree was inconsistent, i.e., ” legally impossible,’ ” inasmuch as all of the elements of manslaughter in the first degree are elements of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime … . We thus modified the judgment by reversing that part convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime and dismissing that count of the indictment.

The Court of Appeals agreed that “the jury’s verdict was inconsistent, and thus repugnant” … , but disagreed with our remedy of dismissal. The Court explained that there is “no constitutional or statutory provision that mandates dismissal for a repugnancy error,” …  and that “a repugnant verdict does not always signify that a defendant has been convicted of a crime on which the jury actually found that he did not commit an essential element” … . … As a result, the Court determined that the People could “resubmit the crime of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime to a new grand jury” … . Matter of DeLee v Brunetti, 2018 NY Slip Op 00742, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (REPUGNANT VERDICTS, PETITION TO PROHIBIT RETRIAL OF A MANSLAUGHTER COUNT DENIED, ALTHOUGH THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISMISSED THE COUNT AFTER DETERMINING THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AGREEING THAT THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, HELD THAT THE PEOPLE COULD SEEK A SECOND INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/REPUGNANT VERDICTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PETITION TO PROHIBIT RETRIAL OF A MANSLAUGHTER COUNT DENIED, ALTHOUGH THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISMISSED THE COUNT AFTER DETERMINING THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AGREEING THAT THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT, HELD THAT THE PEOPLE COULD SEEK A SECOND INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

,

PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION MERGE AND CANNOT RUN CONSECUTIVELY, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN IF ISSUE NOT RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that periods of postrelease supervision cannot run consecutively. An illegal sentence must be corrected even if the issue is not raised on appeal:

​

… [T]he court erred in directing that the periods of postrelease supervision run consecutively to the periods of postrelease supervision imposed in appeal No. 1 … . “Penal Law § 70.45 (5) (c) requires that the periods of postrelease supervision merge and are satisfied by the service of the longest unexpired term” … . We cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand … and we therefore modify the judgment …  accordingly. People v Mcmillian, 2018 NY Slip Op 00649, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION MERGE AND CANNOT RUN CONSECUTIVELY (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION MERGE AND CANNOT RUN CONSECUTIVELY (FOURTH DEPT))/POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION  (PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION MERGE AND CANNOT RUN CONSECUTIVELY (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN IF ISSUE NOT RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY COUNTY COURT, APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE CONVICTION AND ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department vacated defendant’s conviction and adjudicated defendant a youthful offender in the interest of justice (no abuse of discretion). The only factor weighing against youthful offender treatment was the seriousness of the crime, an armed felony:

​

In determining whether to afford such treatment to a defendant, a court must consider “the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, mitigating circumstances, defendant’s prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, defendant’s reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, defendant’s attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life” … . Here, the only factor weighing against affording defendant youthful offender treatment is the seriousness of the crime … . Defendant was 17 years old at the time of the crime and had no prior criminal record or history of violence. Defendant has accepted responsibility for his actions and expressed genuine remorse. The presentence report recommended youthful offender treatment, and the record establishes that defendant has the capacity for a productive and law-abiding future.

Although we do not conclude, after weighing the appropriate factors, that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant youthful offender status, we nevertheless choose to exercise our discretion in the interest of justice by reversing the judgment, vacating the conviction, and adjudicating defendant a youthful offender, and we remit the matter to County Court for sentencing on the adjudication … . People v Keith B.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 00734, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY COUNTY COURT, APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE CONVICTION AND ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY COUNTY COURT, APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE CONVICTION AND ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY COUNTY COURT, APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE CONVICTION AND ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted than an illegal sentence must be corrected even where there has been a waiver of appeal, and even where the issue was not raised below or on appeal. Here defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender, which is not proper when the underlying felony is defined in the Correction Law, not in the Penal Law:

… [I]t is well settled that “even a valid waiver of the right to appeal will not bar [review of] an illegal sentence” … , and we note that the sentence imposed by the court on count three of the superior court information, i.e., a determinate term of incarceration for failure to register internet identifiers as a class D felony, is illegal. That crime is defined in the Correction Law, and “only a person convicted of a felony defined by the Penal Law may be sentenced as a second felony offender” to a determinate term of incarceration … . “Although [the] issue was not raised before the [sentencing] court or on appeal, we cannot allow an [illegal] sentence to stand” … . People v Mcdonald, 2018 NY Slip Op 00657, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS, APPEALS, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/CORRECTIONS LAW (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/ILLEGAL SENTENCE (SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS, APPEALS, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/INTERNET IDENTIFIERS, FAILURE TO REGISTER (CORRECTIONS LAW, SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS, APPEALS, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE BASED UPON A FELONY DEFINED IN THE CORRECTIONS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE PENAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE CORRECTED EVEN WHERE THERE IS A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))

,

CODEFENDANT WAS SEEN ENTERING A CAR WITH A WEAPON WHICH WAS LATER FOUND ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE WEAPON WAS POSSESSED BY ALL IN THE CAR DID NOT APPLY, DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for possession of a weapon, determined the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction. A co-defendant was seen (by the police) getting into a car with the weapon. Defendant also got into the car. The police followed. Before the police pulled the car over, when the car was out of sight, the weapon was thrown out of the car. A cell phone found near the weapon was tied to the defendant, but the weapon was not. The statutory presumption that a weapon in a vehicle is possessed by all in the vehicle did not apply because the weapon was in the possession of a codefendant when he got into the car:

We agree with defendant that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. There is no evidence that he owned or was operating the vehicle, nor is there evidence that he engaged in any other activity that would support a finding that he constructively possessed the weapon… Furthermore, the statutory presumption of possession set forth in Penal Law § 265.15 (3) also does not apply here. The statute provides that “[t]he presence in an automobile, other than a stolen one or a public omnibus, of any firearm . . . is presumptive evidence of its possession by all persons occupying such automobile at the time such weapon . . . is found” … . The statute further provides, however, that the presumption does not apply, inter alia, “if such weapon . . . is found upon the person of one of the occupants therein” (§ 265.15 [3] [a]). Here, the weapon was not found in the vehicle, and the codefendant was holding it while he was observed entering the vehicle. Consequently, “the evidence is clearcut and leads to the sole conclusion that the weapon was . . . upon the person” of the codefendant … .

The People’s contention that defendant threw the weapon out the window, or assisted the codefendant in doing so, because it was found on the right side of the vehicle is based on speculation. Finally, the People introduced no evidence that would support a finding that defendant possessed the weapon as an accomplice. People v Willingham, 2018 NY Slip Op 00733, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

,

NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM ‘PERSON’ IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a comprehensive decision dealing with several substantive issues not summarized here, affirmed defendant’s first degree murder (four counts) and burglary convictions, and reduced the arson second degree conviction to arson third degree. The victims were not alive when the fire was set. The definition of “person” (in the Arson second statute) was interpreted to refer to a living person. In addition, the court held that the motion to suppress the cell site location information (CSLI), which the police obtained without a warrant, and which placed defendant in the town where the crime was committed at the time of the crime, was properly denied:

​

As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has written, “[w]e understand that cell phone users may reasonably want their location information to remain private, just as they may want their trash, placed curbside in opaque bags . . . or the view of their property from 400 feet above the ground . . . to remain so. But the recourse for these desires is in the market or the political process: in demanding that service providers do away with such records (or anonymize them) or in lobbying elected representatives to enact statutory protections. The Fourth Amendment, safeguarded by the courts, protects only reasonable expectations of privacy” (Application of U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F3d at 615).

With respect to defendant’s state constitutional challenge, we conclude that “there is no sufficient reason’ to afford cell site location information at issue here greater protection under the state constitution than it is afforded under the federal constitution” … . People v Taylor, 2018 NY Slip Op 00709, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM ‘PERSON’ IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM ‘PERSON’ IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH DEPT))/CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSIL) (CRIMINAL LAW, NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM ‘PERSON’ IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (FOURTH DEPT))/CELL PHONES (CRIMINAL LAW, CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for possession of a forged instrument (counterfeit check), determined two categories of hearsay evidence were improperly admitted without foundation:

​

… [T]he court “erred in admitting in evidence a printout of electronic data that was displayed on a computer screen [after] defendant presented a check, the allegedly forged instrument, to a bank teller. The People failed to establish that the printout falls within the business records exception to the hearsay rule . . . [because they] presented no evidence that the data displayed on the computer screen, resulting in the printout, was entered in the regular course of business” … . …

​

… [T]he court improperly admitted an investigator’s testimony about the results of a search he ran in a credit bureau’s commercial database for email addresses and a telephone number contained in a cover letter that enclosed the counterfeit check defendant tried to cash. The People failed to establish the requisite foundation for this testimony inasmuch as the investigator did not testify that he “is familiar with the practices of [the] company that produced the records at issue” and that he “generally relies upon such records” … . People v Jones, 2018 NY Slip Op 00710, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, HEARSAY, POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, HEARSAY, POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS (HEARSAY,  POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, over a two-justice dissent, determined the defendant’s murder conviction was against the weight of the evidence. The majority stated that the evidence demonstrated the defendant was probably guilty, but did not rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The dissenters stated they “agreed” with the majority’s “implicit” determination that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, but they disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. The decision describes the evidence in great detail which cannot be fairly summarized here. In a nutshell, there was evidence the defendant went into a motel room with the victim, where the victim was found dead. But the majority noted there was other evidence to suggest the victim had left the motel room at some point and someone other than the defendant was also in the room:

​

The People’s case thus rested on three pillars of circumstantial evidence: (1) the fact that defendant entered the hotel with the victim at approximately 7:00 p.m., some 15 hours before his dead body was found in the hotel room; (2) the fact that defendant repeatedly lied to the police when he said that he did not know the victim and had never met him; and (3) the fact that the victim’s vehicle was found abandoned on a city street approximately six-tenths of a mile from defendant’s residence.

… [D]efendant’s presence in the room, although incriminating, is by no means conclusive considering that other people may have been in the room with the victim and that the Medical Examiner could not determine the time of death. As for defendant’s lies to the police, it appears that he may not have been living as an openly gay man—he had a girlfriend and children from different women— and he may have said that he did not know the victim so as not to reveal his sexual orientation. Finally, although the presence of the vehicle so close to defendant’s residence is suspicious, the victim was known to drive around the city looking for sexual partners … . * * *

​

Although the police cannot be faulted for arresting defendant, nor the People for prosecuting him, the evidence at trial simply failed to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There are too many unanswered questions for us to be comfortable that the right person is serving a life sentence for the victim’s murder.

From the dissent:  We agree with the implicit determination of our colleagues that there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict of murder in the second degree  … , but we respectfully disagree with their conclusion that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. People v Carter, 2018 NY Slip Op 00711, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE/AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the arresting officer did not have cause to frisk the defendant, which revealed a weapon. The motion to suppress the weapon should have been granted. The officer had responded to a call about a shooting at a bar which described the suspect as a male Hispanic. The officer found a bullet fragment and some blood in a parking lot and he approached a group of people who were about 10 to 25 feet away. One person in the group appeared to the officer to be a male Hispanic. Someone in the group said they didn’t hear or see anything. The officer then frisked the defendant, who is black, not Hispanic:

… [T]he police had an objective, credible reason to approach the group of five people in the parking lot and to request information in light of the report of a shooting at or near that location at some unidentified earlier time. Thus, we conclude that the police encounter was lawful at its inception… . The People correctly concede, however, that the officer’s encounter with defendant constituted a level three forcible detention under the four-tiered De Bour framework …, and thus required “a reasonable suspicion that [defendant] was involved in a felony or misdemeanor” … .

We conclude that, “[b]ecause of the lack of correspondence between defendant’s appearance and the description of the suspected [shooter that was] transmitted to the officer[] . . . , the officer[] had no basis for concluding that the reported crime had been committed by defendant” … . “Nor can the [frisk of defendant] and seizure of the gun be justified as having been in the interests of the officer[‘s] safety, since there was no testimony that the officer[] believed defendant to be carrying a weapon” … ,and the People presented no other evidence establishing that the officer had reason to fear for his safety … . People v Roberts, 2018 NY Slip Op 00725, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE  (FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/STREET STOPS (FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (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