You are here: / Criminal Law

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION FOR ONE COUNT INFECTED THE PLEAS TO THE OTHER COUNTS AS WELL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty pleas, determined that the failure to inform the defendant of the period of postrelease supervision for one count infected the pleas to the other counts as well:

​

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of three counts of kidnapping in the second degree … and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree … . During the plea colloquy, County Court indicated that it would sentence defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of 3 to 6 years pursuant to Penal Law § 60.12. Section 60.12 allows a court to impose indeterminate terms of imprisonment for certain defendants who are facing determinate terms of sentences under section 70.02 if the defendant has been the victim of domestic abuse. The court here in fact imposed concurrent, indeterminate terms of 3 to 6 years pursuant to section 60.12 (2) (a) for the kidnapping counts, but imposed a concurrent determinate sentence of 3½ years with 5 years of postrelease supervision on the weapon count pursuant to sections 70.02 (3) (b) and 70.45 (2) (f).

The People correctly concede that the court failed to fulfill its obligation to advise defendant at the time of her plea that the sentence imposed upon her conviction of the weapon count would include a period of postrelease supervision… . We therefore reverse the judgment and vacate defendant’s plea … . Contrary to the People’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the entire plea must be vacated and not merely the plea on the weapon count. The entire plea agreement was infected by the court’s error in failing to advise defendant of postrelease supervision, and this is not a case in which the counts may be treated separately … . People v Maxwell, 2017 NY Slip Op 08986, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION FOR ONE COUNT INFECTED THE PLEAS TO THE OTHER COUNTS AS WELL (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION FOR ONE COUNT INFECTED THE PLEAS TO THE OTHER COUNTS AS WELL (FOURTH DEPT))/POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION FOR ONE COUNT INFECTED THE PLEAS TO THE OTHER COUNTS AS WELL (FOURTH DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE  (FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION FOR ONE COUNT INFECTED THE PLEAS TO THE OTHER COUNTS AS WELL (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT PROPERLY ASSESSED 80 POINTS FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK LEVEL PROCEEDING, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, DETERMINATION REVERSED HOWEVER BECAUSE COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER DOWNWARD DEPARTURE REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s request for a downward departure in this Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk level assessment should have been considered. Defendant was properly assessed 80 points in this child pornography case:

​

The Court of Appeals has noted that “the children depicted in child pornography are necessarily counted as victims under [risk] factor 3, and nothing in that factor’s plain terms suggests otherwise. After all, factor 3 permits the assessment of 30 points [where, as here,] [t]here were three or more victims’ involved in a defendant’s current sex crime” … . The Court of Appeals has also made it clear that “the plain terms of [risk] factor 7 authorize the assessment of points based on a child pornography offender’s stranger relationship with the children featured in his or her child pornography files, and thus points can be properly assessed under that factor due to an offender’s lack of prior acquaintance with the children depicted in the files” … . Here, the People established by clear and convincing evidence that the children depicted in the images on defendant’s computer were strangers to defendant. Consequently, the court properly concluded that “defendant should be assessed 30 points under risk factor 3, number of victims,’ based on the numerous child victims depicted in the images he possessed . . . and 20 points under risk factor 7, relationship with victim, stranger,’ [inasmuch] as defendant did not know his child victims.”

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in failing to consider his request for a downward departure from the presumptive level two risk yielded by his 80-point total score on the risk assessment instrument … .. We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to County Court for a determination of whether defendant met his “initial burden of (1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence’ ” …  and, if so, for the court to exercise its discretion whether to grant defendant’s request for a downward departure … . People v Tutty, 2017 NY Slip Op 09029, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, DEFENDANT PROPERLY ASSESSED 80 POINTS FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK LEVEL PROCEEDING, DETERMINATION REVERSED HOWEVER BECAUSE COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER DOWNWARD DEPARTURE REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (DEFENDANT PROPERLY ASSESSED 80 POINTS FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK LEVEL PROCEEDING, DETERMINATION REVERSED HOWEVER BECAUSE COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER DOWNWARD DEPARTURE REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT))/DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SORA, DEFENDANT PROPERLY ASSESSED 80 POINTS FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK LEVEL PROCEEDING, DETERMINATION REVERSED HOWEVER BECAUSE COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER DOWNWARD DEPARTURE REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DARDEN HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFORMANT WAS LEGITIMATELY UNAVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s request for a Darden hearing should not have been denied. The People did not demonstrate the informant who provided information to support a search warrant application was legitimately unavailable for the hearing:

​

Where, as here, there is insufficient evidence to establish probable cause supporting a search warrant without the statements of a confidential informant, the People must make the informant available for questioning in camera … . If, however, the informant cannot be produced despite the diligent efforts of the People, “the People may instead establish the existence of [the] confidential informant[] through extrinsic evidence’ after demonstrating that the informant is legitimately unavailable’ ” … . Here, the court summarily denied defendant’s request upon the People’s bare assertion that the informant was in California and thus unavailable. Although the People subsequently produced an unsworn letter, purportedly from the informant’s drug treatment facility in California, stating that the informant required uninterrupted care, that letter, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate that the informant was legitimately unavailable. We conclude that the People failed to establish that an exception to the Darden rule is applicable, and thus the court erred in denying defendant’s request for a Darden hearing … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to conduct an appropriate hearing, at which the People will not be precluded from offering evidence that the informant is currently unavailable. People v Givans, 2017 NY Slip Op 09066, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DARDEN HEARING, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DARDEN HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFORMANT WAS LEGITIMATELY UNAVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/DARDEN HEARING (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DARDEN HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFORMANT WAS LEGITIMATELY UNAVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (DARDEN HEARING, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DARDEN HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFORMANT WAS LEGITIMATELY UNAVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined that defendant’s conviction in this murder case was supported by the weight of the evidence. The dissent argued that defendant’s videotaped statement supported the justification defense and no other evidence presented by the People refuted it. The opinion includes a comprehensive discussion of the appellate court’s weight of the evidence analysis:

​

Weight of the evidence review involves a two-step approach. (People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]). First, the Court must determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable (id.; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). If so, then the appellate court must weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony … . That step is performed by weighing the evidence against the elements as charged to the jury … . The evidence must be of such weight and credibility as to convince the Court that the jury’s finding of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was justified … . * * *

​

Viewing all of the record evidence in light of the first prong of the Romero-Bleakley standard, had the jury credited defendant’s account of the events surrounding the shooting, it could have reasonably found that defendant was, as the trial court instructed, “justified in the use of deadly physical force, . . . hav[ing] honestly believed that it was necessary to defend himself from what he honestly believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by Steven Mari and [that] a reasonable person in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew, and being in the same circumstances would have believed that too.” Thus, had the jury credited defendant’s statement, it would not have been unreasonable for the jury to have acquitted defendant … .

Turning to the second step of the Romero-Bleakley analysis, at the outset, there is no basis for disturbing the jury’s rejection of defendant’s videotaped statement. Defendant’s statements … were materially inconsistent, and defied credulity. People v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08899, First Dept 12-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY PRESENTED THROUGH THE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence of serious physical injury, an element of the gang assault charge, was supported by sufficient evidence presented to the grand jury. However, prosecutorial misconduct during the grand jury proceedings warranted dismissal of the indictment (the People may represent however):

​

We agree with the People that the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish that the victim sustained a serious physical injury. While the medical records introduced in evidence were uncertified and were thus hearsay, the victim himself was competent to testify to “readily apparent external physical injuries of which he obviously [had] personal knowledge” … .

​

We agree with the court, however, that the prosecutor engaged in a pervasive pattern of improper conduct at the grand jury proceeding that warranted dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the integrity of the proceeding was impaired … .. The prosecutor acted improperly in repeatedly asking leading questions of his witnesses … , and in introducing hearsay evidence … . During his cross-examination of defendants, the prosecutor improperly asked them whether other witnesses were lying … ., and he asked Blauvelt, without any evident good faith basis, whether defendants used illegal drugs on the night of the altercation and whether they used steroids in general … .. “Most egregiously,” as described by the court, the prosecutor acted as an unsworn witness by stating personal opinions relevant to material issues during his instructions to the grand jury, i.e., that younger people are more likely than older people to start fights, and that the victim’s injuries must have resulted from “a substantial beating” … . We remind the People that a prosecutor owes “a duty of fair dealing to the accused” at a grand jury proceeding and, more generally, that a prosecutor “serves a dual role as advocate and public officer,” and must “not only . . . seek convictions but [must] also . . . see that justice is done” … . People v Blauvelt, 2017 NY Slip Op 08948, Fourth Dept 12-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY PRESENTED THROUGH THE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (MISCONDUCT DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY PRESENTED THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM WAS SUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT))

, , , ,

SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROPERLY UNSEALED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined sealed records were properly unsealed in this sex offender civil commitment hearing:

​

The Supreme Court properly granted the State’s motion to unseal the records kept by the Office of the Suffolk County District Attorney and the Suffolk County Police Department regarding the defendant’s 2001 arrest for rape in the first degree. Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08(c) provides, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the commissioner, the case review panel and the attorney general shall be entitled to request from any agency, office, department or other entity of the state, and such entity shall be authorized to provide upon request, any and all records and reports relating to the respondent’s commission or alleged commission of a sex offense, the institutional adjustment and any treatment received by such respondent, and any medical, clinical or other information relevant to a determination of whether the respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management.” “The primary goal of the court in interpreting a statute is to determine and implement the Legislature’s intent”… . Given the legislative purpose underlying Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08(c), we have construed this statute to permit authorized parties to obtain records from local government entities in addition to State entities … . Matter of State of New York v David B., 2017 NY Slip Op 08831, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROPERLY UNSEALED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROPERLY UNSEALED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SEALED RECORDS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS,  SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROPERLY UNSEALED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/SEALED RECORDS SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROPERLY UNSEALED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a new Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk level hearing because his attorney did not advocate his position and did not understand the availability of downward departure:

​

A defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel in a SORA proceeding … . Here, the defendant’s counsel “failed to litigate any aspect of the adjudication” … , and, instead, affirmatively asserted that there was no basis on which to challenge or depart from the presumptive risk level. Moreover, defense counsel’s comments suggested that there was no basis for a downward departure because the points “add[ed] up validly,” thus demonstrating a misunderstanding of the law regarding downward departures from the presumptive risk level … . These facts, as well as defense counsel’s failure to seek a downward departure under the circumstances of this case, operated to deprive the defendant of meaningful representation in the SORA proceeding … . People v Collins, 2017 NY Slip Op 08866, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, SORA HEARING, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (SORA, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (ATTORNEYS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))

FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY QUESTION JUROR ABOUT HER ABILITY TO BE FAIR AFTER SHE INDICATED SHE DID NOT THINK A PERSON SHOULD RESPOND TO VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the court did not sufficiently question a juror about her ability to be fair after she indicated she didn’t think a person should respond to violence with violence:

​

Here, during voir dire, a prospective juror indicated in response to questioning by defense counsel that she felt “you are never in the right if you respond to aggression with physical violence” and should “always turn the other cheek,” and that it was possible her belief could influence how she would decide the case. When the Supreme Court followed up by asking the prospective juror if her “religious beliefs” affected her verdict when she previously served on a criminal jury, she stated “I’m an atheist.” The court did not inquire further into the prospective juror’s ability to render an impartial verdict.

Under the circumstances of this case, the prospective juror’s statements revealed a state of mind likely to preclude her from rendering an impartial verdict, and thus, it was incumbent upon the Supreme Court to ascertain that she would render an impartial verdict based on the evidence … . The court failed to obtain an unequivocal assurance from the prospective juror, who never indicated that “religious beliefs” might influence her decision, that she would render an impartial verdict based on the evidence despite her feelings about the use of violence … . Further, the court’s collective inquiry to the whole panel as to whether “everybody here” could be fair and impartial was insufficient to constitute an unequivocal declaration of impartiality from the prospective juror at issue … . People v Francois, 2017 NY Slip Op 08844, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY QUESTION JUROR ABOUT HER ABILITY TO BE FAIR AFTER SHE INDICATED SHE DID NOT THINK A PERSON SHOULD RESPOND TO VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/VOIR DIRE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY QUESTION JUROR ABOUT HER ABILITY TO BE FAIR AFTER SHE INDICATED SHE DID NOT THINK A PERSON SHOULD RESPOND TO VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, VOIR DIRE, FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY QUESTION JUROR ABOUT HER ABILITY TO BE FAIR AFTER SHE INDICATED SHE DID NOT THINK A PERSON SHOULD RESPOND TO VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))

,

DETERMINATION OF MOTION TO TAKE A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING IS A CRITICAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS REQUIRING REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL, BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEEN RELIEVED, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEAS MUST BE VACATED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined defendant was deprived of counsel at a critical stage of the prosecution, i.e., when the People made a motion to take a buccal swap for DNA testing. The appellate division properly vacated defendant’s pleas, but should not have dismissed the indictment:

​

Here, the People filed their motion to compel the DNA test and served the motion on retained counsel in court. As the Appellate Division found, the trial court — in defendant’s absence — subsequently granted both the retained defense counsel’s motion to be relieved from representing defendant for failure to pay his fee and the People’s DNA discovery motion, which it granted based on the “putative consent” it inferred from retained counsel’s silence. Later the same day that counsel was relieved, defendant appeared in court. Knowing defendant was unrepresented, the court, rather than remain neutral, proceeded to act in place of counsel throughout an extensive colloquy, telling defendant that there were no bases on which to challenge the DNA sample order. In response to the court, defendant stated that he had not spoken with his attorney about the prosecution’s motion and did not wish to consent to giving a sample. Notwithstanding defendant’s entreaties, the court rejected his repeated requests for an attorney to advise him regarding the motion. Instead, the court told defendant “an attorney [was] not going to be able to help,” and that there was “no basis for fighting [the test].” When defendant said he did not “know the law,” the judge responded “I know the law.” On these facts, the Appellate Division correctly determined that “the pretrial proceedings concerning the DNA test were ‘critical’ within the meaning of the law … . Accordingly, defendant was deprived his right to counsel.

​

We reject the dissent’s conclusion that defendant was not denied counsel during a critical stage of the proceeding, as that determination is contrary to law and would require that we distort the factual record. As the People concede, there was no express consent to their request for the DNA sample, either by defendant or by retained counsel. Nor was there any affirmative conduct or errant statement by defendant or counsel from which implied consent could be inferred. Instead, as the People acknowledge, the court issued its order based only on retained counsel’s failure to reply to the People’s motion to compel the buccal swab. Under the circumstances here, that is not a proper basis for finding defendant’s consent … . Further, as the record unambiguously shows, shortly after the court granted retained counsel’s request to withdraw — leaving defendant unrepresented — defendant appeared in court, expressly denied consent, and repeatedly stated he wanted counsel to assist him in responding to the People’s motion [FN5]. Yet, rather than appointing counsel, the court told defendant there was no basis to oppose the motion. Notwithstanding these facts, the dissent believes defendant was represented on the motion for the DNA sample; we do not. People v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 08798, CtApp 12-19-17

 

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DETERMINATION OF MOTION TO TAKE A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING IS A CRITICAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS REQUIRING REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL, BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEEN RELIEVED, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEAS MUST BE VACATED (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DETERMINATION OF MOTION TO TAKE A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING IS A CRITICAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS REQUIRING REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL, BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEEN RELIEVED, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEAS MUST BE VACATED (CT APP))/DNA TESTING (CRIMINAL LAW, DETERMINATION OF MOTION TO TAKE A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING IS A CRITICAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS REQUIRING REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL, BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEEN RELIEVED, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEAS MUST BE VACATED (CT APP))

WHERE THE DEFENDANT AND THE IDENTIFYING WITNESS APPEAR TO BELONG TO DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS, THE DEFENDANT, UPON REQUEST, IS ENTITLED TO A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE ISSUE WAS RAISED AT TRIAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge concurring opinion, determined that, in a case where there is a question whether defendant and the identifying witness belong to different racial groups, upon request, a defendant is entitled to a so-called cross-racial identification jury instruction. The issue need not have come up at trial either during cross-examination of the identifying witness or by the presentation of expert opinion evidence:

​

In light … the cross-race effect, which has been accepted by a near consensus in the relevant scientific community of cognitive and social psychologists, and recognizing the very significant part that inaccurate identifications play in wrongful convictions, we reach the following holding: in a case in which a witness’s identification of the defendant is at issue, and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, a trial court is required to give, upon request, during final instructions, a jury charge on the cross-race effect, instructing (1) that the jury should consider whether there is a difference in race between the defendant and the witness who identified the defendant, and (2) that, if so, the jury should consider (a) that some people have greater difficulty in accurately identifying members of a different race than in accurately identifying members of their own race and (b) whether the difference in race affected the accuracy of the witness’s identification. The instruction would not be required when there is no dispute about the identity of the perpetrator nor would it be obligatory when no party asks for the charge … . People v Boone, 2017 NY Slip Op 08713, CtApp 12-14-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY INSTRUCTIONS, IDENTIFICATION, WHERE THE DEFENDANT AND THE IDENTIFYING WITNESS APPEAR TO BELONG TO DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS, THE DEFENDANT, UPON REQUEST, IS ENTITLED TO A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE ISSUE WAS RAISED AT TRIAL (CT APP))/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY INSTRUCTIONS, IDENTIFICATION, WHERE THE DEFENDANT AND THE IDENTIFYING WITNESS APPEAR TO BELONG TO DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS, THE DEFENDANT, UPON REQUEST, IS ENTITLED TO A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE ISSUE WAS RAISED AT TRIAL (CT APP))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION,  WHERE THE DEFENDANT AND THE IDENTIFYING WITNESS APPEAR TO BELONG TO DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS, THE DEFENDANT, UPON REQUEST, IS ENTITLED TO A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE ISSUE WAS RAISED AT TRIAL (CT APP))/CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY INSTRUCTIONS, WHERE THE DEFENDANT AND THE IDENTIFYING WITNESS APPEAR TO BELONG TO DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS, THE DEFENDANT, UPON REQUEST, IS ENTITLED TO A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE ISSUE WAS RAISED AT TRIAL (CT APP))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy