You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined defendant’s attorney’s conflict of interest deprived defendant of effective assistance of counsel and, upon retrial, the testimony which resulted from the conflict can not be presented:

 

In this observation drug sale case, defendant, an alleged seller, was appointed the same attorney at his Criminal Court arraignment as Edward Jones, one of the alleged buyers. During the course of counsel’s simultaneous representation of defendant and Jones, Jones accepted a plea that required him to allocute to a description of one of the drug sellers. Jones allocuted to a description fitting defendant, and testified consistently with the allocution as a prosecution witness at trial. Since we find that counsel’s simultaneous representation of defendant at the time of Jones’s plea constituted an actual conflict, we reverse and remand for a new trial. In addition, because Jones’s testimony is interwoven with a violation of defendant’s New York State and Federal right to the effective assistance of counsel, we preclude the People from using Jones’s testimony at any retrial. * * *

​

During cross-examination, Jones admitted that he did tell the Assistant District Attorney, in his office, that defendant did not sell him crack cocaine. During redirect, Jones explained that he believed he did not have to tell the prosecutor the truth in his office, but that, now that he was under oath, he was “not going to perjure [him]self. . . .” * * *

​

Here, defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel was infringed by an actual conflict. At the time of their simultaneous representation and Jones’s plea, the interests of defendant and Jones were clearly opposed. Jones had an interest in avoiding a criminal conviction by allocuting to identify defendant as one of the people who had sold him drugs. Defendant had an interest in not being so identified. Counsel was thus placed in the “very awkward position of a lawyer subject to conflicting demands” … . Indeed, despite defendant’s right to representation by an attorney single-mindedly devoted to his best interests, counsel pursued a strategy in Jones’s case directly at odds with defending defendant from the drug sale charges that he faced … .. After swearing to a description of one of the sellers that fit defendant, Jones became unavailable to defendant as a trial witness and his strength as a prosecution witness was enhanced … . Counsel’s actions with respect to Jones were inconsistent with representing defendant in the best way possible, so defendant was denied the “right to receive advice and assistance from an attorney whose paramount responsibility is to that defendant alone” … . People v Peters, 2017 NY Slip Op 08497, First Dept 12-5-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, EVIDENCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFLICT, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE,  DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT, DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, EVIDENCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the state was obligated to defendant the petitioner, a corrections officer, in a civil action brought by an inmate against the petitioner. The state argued its obligation to defend the petitioner ended when petitioner pled guilty to official misconduct. The court found that the sparse plea allocution did not indicate the acts alleged in the civil complaint were outside the scope of petitioner’s employment, the allegations in the bill of particulars could not be used to supplement the plea allocution, and the plea did not address at all some of the allegations in the civil complaint:

​

As is the case in the private insurance realm, the state’s determination to disclaim financial responsibility for an employee’s defense is rational only if it can be determined, as a matter of law, “that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which the [s]tate may be obligated to indemnify the employee” … . Pursuant to Public Officers Law § 17 (3) (a), the state has an obligation to indemnify its employees for any judgment or settlement obtained against them in state or federal court, so long as “the act or omission from which [the] judgment or settlement arose occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his [or her] public employment or duties” and “the injury or damage [did not] result[] from intentional wrongdoing on the part of the employee.” Stated differently, the state will not have a duty to indemnify an employee if the act or omission giving rise to the civil judgment or settlement occurred outside the scope of his or her employment or was the product of intentional wrongdoing … .

Generally, “a particular issue expressly or necessarily decided in a criminal proceeding may be given preclusive effect in a subsequent affected civil action” if “the issue is identical in both actions, necessarily decided in the prior criminal action[,] . . . decisive in the civil action [and the defendant in the criminal action] had a full and fair opportunity . . . to litigate the now-foreclosed issue” … . Contrary to respondent’s contentions, neither petitioner’s plea allocution nor the elements of official misconduct preclusively established that the acts alleged in the civil complaint occurred while petitioner was acting outside the scope of his employment or that the injuries or damages allegedly sustained by [the inmate] were the result of petitioner’s intentional wrongdoing … . Matter of Rademacher v Schneiderman, 2017 NY Slip Op 08416, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT (CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, EMPLOYMENT LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW,  CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/CORRECTIONS OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the trial court’s finding that an oral agreement concerning the repayment of a $170,000 loan was enforceable, because the loan could have been paid off within a year (re: the statute of frauds). Both plaintiff and defendant were bookmakers who had been convicted of promoting gambling. The fact that plaintiff refused to answer questions about whether he paid income tax on the proceeds, based upon the Fifth Amendment, did not affect the result because there was nothing illegal about the loan agreement itself. The two dissenters argued the parties were engaged in money laundering and the loan agreement should not be enforced as a matter of public policy:

​

We are mindful that plaintiff testified that the source of the loan proceeds was cash obtained through his illegal bookmaking activities. Indeed, both plaintiff and defendant were convicted of promoting gambling and required to pay fines in the amount of $100,000 and $50,000, respectively. Although plaintiff asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked whether he ever reported the cash as income, we are not persuaded by defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in failing to draw a negative inference because the source and/or taxable status of the funds was not probative of the issue presented. According due deference to Supreme Court’s credibility assessments, we find ample evidence to support the determination that plaintiff and defendant agreed to the loan that defendant breached by failing to make all of the payments due… . Contrary to defendant’s argument, because there was nothing prohibiting defendant from repaying the loan within one year, the statute of frauds did not bar enforcement of the oral agreement … .

We also find that defendant waived his right to challenge the loan on the basis of illegality because it was not raised as an affirmative defense … . Were we to consider the issue, we would find that, because neither the agreement nor the performance of the agreement was illegal, the judgment was enforceable … . Centi v McGillin, 2017 NY Slip Op 08430, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, DEBTOR-CREDITOR, ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, MONEY LAUNDERING, ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT))/MONEY LAUNDERING (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTRACT LAW, (ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT))

,

DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant, a doctor accused of operation a “pill mill” for persons addicted to opioids and Xanax, was properly convicted of manslaughter in the overdose deaths of two persons to whom he has supplied drugs:

Defendant argues that the manslaughter convictions should be reversed because, as a matter of law, the sale of a controlled substance can never support a homicide charge in the absence of express legislative authorization. He bases this position on a [2nd] Department decision, People v Pinckney (38 AD2d 217 [2nd Dept 1972] … ). * * *

… Nothing in Pinckney suggests that one who provides a controlled substance, whether it be heroin by a street dealer, or opioids by a medical doctor, can never be indicted on a manslaughter charge. Indeed, in People v Cruciani (36 NY2d 304 [1975]), the [Ct.] of Appeals affirmed the second degree manslaughter conviction of the defendant, who injected the victim with heroin, because he knew she was already in a highly intoxicated state. The Cruciani Court distinguished Pinckney, because in the latter case there was not “any proof, as here, of awareness of the ongoing effect of drugs in the victim’s body at the time any self-inflicted injection might have been made, or, beyond the general knowledge of the injuriousness of drug-taking, of a real threat to life. The remoteness of that fatal injection from the fact of sale diffused intent and scienter by possibly unknown or intervening events beyond Pinckney’s control” … .

At bottom, all that was needed for the manslaughter charge to be sustained was for the People to satisfy its elements. That is, that defendant was “aware of and consciously disregard[ed] a substantial and unjustifiable risk that [death] [would] occur . . . The risk [being] of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitute[d] a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” … .

The question then becomes whether the People presented sufficient evidence to establish that defendant consciously disregarded the risk that Haeg and Rappold would die as a result of his prescribing practices. … People v Stan XuHui Li, 2017 NY Slip Op 08438, First Dept 11-30-17

CRIMINAL LAW (MANSLAUGHTER, PILL MILL, DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (OPIOIDS, PILL MILL, DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT))/OPIOIDS (CRIMINAL LAW, MANSLAUGHTER, PILL MILL, DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT))/PILL MILL (CRIMINAL LAW, MANSLAUGHTER, PILL MILL, DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT))

,

PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, determined the prosecution could not use the doctrine of collateral estoppel to fulfill its proof requirements at the grand jury stage. Defendant had been convicted of attempted murder, which included the intent to kill. After the victim died, the People indicted the defendant for murder. The grand jury was told the intent element had already been proven and the grand jury need only consider causation. The Third Department noted the difference between the application of collateral estoppel in civil and criminal cases. From the defendant’s perspective, using the collateral estoppel doctrine in this context violated defendant’s constitutional rights:

​

While the People argue that their offensive use of collateral estoppel is fair play, in that had defendant been acquitted of attempted murder, he would defensively rely on collateral estoppel principles to argue against a subsequent murder trial, this analysis overlooks the obvious and critical difference between an accused’s defensive use of this doctrine and a prosecutor’s strategic use of it against an accused. An accused’s defensive invocation of this doctrine implicates and protects constitutional rights — to a jury trial, to present a defense, to due process and to not be placed twice in jeopardy, among others — whereas the People’s affirmative use is for matters of expediency and economy and lacks a constitutional imperative  … . A California intermediate appellate court that confronted this identical issue over 20 years ago similarly concluded that this strategic use of collateral estoppel was inconsistent with due process, noting that “the pursuit of judicial economy and efficiency may never be used to deny a defendant . . . a fair trial,” and that instructing a jury that a murder trial was limited to causation created an impermissible “gravitational pull towards a guilty verdict” … . People v Morrison, 2017 NY Slip Op 08405, Third Dept 11-30-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/GRAND JURY (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, EVIDENCE, PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))

DENIAL OF PAROLEE’S REQUEST TO LIVE IN HIS FAMILY HOME WAS APPARENTLY BASED UPON COMMUNITY PRESSURE AND WAS REVERSED AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied petitioner permission to live in his family home (Telford home) after released on parole, apparently based upon community pressure:

​

“Pursuant to Executive Law § 259-c(2) and 9 NYCRR 8003.3, special conditions may be imposed upon a parolee’s right to release. The courts routinely uphold these conditions as long as they are rationally related to the inmate’s past conduct and future chance of recidivism. Acceptable parole restrictions have included geographical restrictions and restrictions requiring that parolees refrain from contact with certain individuals or classes of individuals”… .

Under the circumstances of this case, speculation by DOCCS about possible community efforts to exclude the petitioner from otherwise suitable housing and about the petitioner’s potential response to such efforts is not a rational basis for denial of otherwise suitable housing … . As the respondents have articulated no other basis for denying approval of the proposed residence, the respondents’ refusal to approve the Telford home as a suitable postrelease residence was arbitrary and capricious, as the determination bears no rational relation to the petitioner’s past conduct or likelihood that he will re-offend … . Matter of Telford v McCartney, 2017 NY Slip Op 08384,  Second Dept 11-29-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF PAROLEE’S REQUEST TO LIVE IN HIS FAMILY HOME WAS APPARENTLY BASED UPON COMMUNITY PRESSURE AND WAS REVERSED AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT))/PAROLE (DENIAL OF PAROLEE’S REQUEST TO LIVE IN HIS FAMILY HOME WAS APPARENTLY BASED UPON COMMUNITY PRESSURE AND WAS REVERSED AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT))

,

PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, affirmed the first degree assault convictions. The dissent argued the proof of “serious physical evidence” was not sufficient:

​

The element of serious physical injury … required for the assault convictions  … was established by evidence showing that four years after the complainant was struck by a bullet, he still felt pain and the bullet fragments in his leg and could not engage in sports at the same level as before the incident. This proof sufficiently shows a protracted impairment of health or protracted impairment of the function of a bodily organ to support a finding of serious physical injury … . * * *

​

From the dissent:

​

There is no proof of injury connected to the bullet fragments, nor is there proof that [the victim’s] life was endangered by the presence of the fragments … .Notably, the People’s expert was unable to opine as to whether [the victim] had suffered permanent deficits associated with the injury.

The fact that [the victim] suffered a gunshot wound does not ipso facto establish that he suffered a “serious physical injury” … . People v Garland, 2017 NY Slip Op 08302, First Dept 11-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ASSAULT, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT (CRIMINAL LAW, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (CRIMINAL LAW, ASSAULT, PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))

,

JUROR DID NOT REVEAL DURING VOIR DIRE SHE HAD APPLIED FOR A JOB IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TWO DAYS BEFORE, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should have been granted. After the trial the prosecutor informed the court that a juror in defendant’s trial had applied for a job at the district attorney’s office two days before jury selection but did not disclose the application during voir dire. Ultimately the juror was hired by the district attorney’s office. Although the juror had prior experience on the prosecution side, her position at the time of trial involved white collar criminal defense. Defense counsel stated at the hearing that the juror was chosen because of her criminal defense work and, had defense counsel been aware the juror had applied for work in the district attorney’s office, the juror would have been struck:

​

Here, due to the juror’s concealment of material information regarding her job application, which also demonstrated a predisposition in favor of the prosecution, defendant was deprived of an impartial jury comprised of 12 jurors whom he had selected and approved through voir dire. In fact, defendant was tried by only 11 jurors whom he truly selected and approved; this violated his constitutional right to a jury of 12 of his own choice in a criminal case … . He was also deprived of exercising the various safeguards put into place by our legislature. As defense counsel testified, had the juror timely disclosed this information he would have moved to strike her for cause, and if unsuccessful would have exercised a peremptory challenge against her … While we recognize that there is no rule requiring automatic reversal in these situations … , since the verdict was not returned by a fair and impartial jury and we find the juror would have been subject to removal for cause, we agree with defendant that he was denied a fair trial on the ground that he was not tried by a jury of his own choice. We thus remand for a new trial. Critically, the juror remaining on the jury was prejudicial to defendant because he was ultimately convicted by the jury. People v Southall, 2017 NY Slip Op 08344, First Dept 11-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUROR DID NOT REVEAL DURING VOIR DIRE SHE HAD APPLIED FOR A JOB IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TWO DAYS BEFORE, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, JUROR DID NOT REVEAL DURING VOIR DIRE SHE HAD APPLIED FOR A JOB IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TWO DAYS BEFORE, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

,

ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the patient (Radcliffe M.) was unable to make treatment decisions for himself and that a particular medication for schizophrenia should be administered over the patient’s objection. However, the evidence did not support the findings that certain alternative drugs could be administered or that the order should be nondurational (no termination date):

​

The State may administer a course of medical treatment against a patient’s will if it establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patient lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to proposed treatment … , and that “the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient’s liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the patient’s best interests, the benefits to be gained from the treatment, the adverse side effects associated with the treatment and any less intrusive alternative treatments”… . Whether a mentally ill patient has the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to treatment is a question of fact for the hearing court, the credibility findings of which are entitled to due deference… . Here, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Radcliffe M. lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to continuing a course of treatment of Haldol Deconoate … . Further, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed course of treatment with Haldol Deconoate was narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to Radcliffe M.’s liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including his best interests, the benefits to be gained from the treatment, the adverse side effects associated with the treatment, and any less intrusive alternative treatments … .

​

However, the petitioner failed to offer any testimony or evidence at the hearing with respect to the additional medications included in the order as “Reasonable Alternatives” … . …

​

A nondurational order is appropriate where it is established that treatment will allow the patient to become stabilized and restore the patient’s ability to make reasoned decisions regarding the management of his or her mental illness … . In such circumstances, “the order’s forcefulness will end as soon as [the patient] is no longer so incapacitated” … . The petitioner failed to establish that Radcliffe M.’s ability to make reasoned decisions regarding his own treatment will be restored with treatment and that a nondurational order would therefore be appropriate … . Matter of Radcliffe M., 2017 NY Slip Op 08270, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT))/SCHIZOPHRENIA (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (INMATES, ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT))/INMATES (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, found that the charged family offenses of aggravated harassment and assault third were not supported by proof of physical injury:

​

… [T]he petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the appellant committed the family offenses of aggravated harassment and assault in the third degree. Both of those family offenses require proof of physical injury, which is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” … . Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing failed to adequately demonstrate that the petitioner suffered a physical injury as a result of the conduct alleged in the petition … . Since the court’s factual determinations were not supported by the record, we vacate the finding that the appellant committed the family offenses of aggravated harassment and assault in the third degree … .. Inasmuch as the petitioner has not raised any alternative grounds for affirmance of the order of protection … , under the circumstances, we reverse the order of protection, deny the family offense petition, and dismiss the proceeding … . Matter of Stanislaus v Stanislaus, 2017 NY Slip Op 08274, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT  (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT THIRD DEGREE  (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/FAMILY OFFENSES (FAMILY OFFENSES OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT THIRD NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND 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