You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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))

,

DESPITE THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that defendant’s second degree murder counts were lesser inclusory counts of first degree murder. Therefore the second degree murder counts should have been dismissed upon the first degree murder conviction. The fact that this issue was not raised below or on appeal did not preclude dismissal by the appellate court:

​

… [A]lthough not raised by either party, modification of the judgment is required. “With respect to inclusory concurrent counts, . . . [a] verdict of guilty upon the greatest count submitted is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count submitted” (CPL 300.40 [3] [b]). The two counts of murder in the second degree upon which defendant was convicted are inclusory concurrent counts of the count of murder in the first degree upon which he was also convicted … . Consequently, defendant’s convictions of murder in the second degree must be reversed and the respective counts of the indictment dismissed. People v Davis, 2017 NY Slip Op 08214, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DESPITE THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS (CRIMINAL LAW, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined that wrong advice about his ability to appeal the denial of his speedy trial motion warranted reversal:

​

A defendant who has entered a plea of guilty “forfeit[s] his [or her] right to claim that he [or she] was deprived of a speedy trial under CPL 30.30″… .However, where, as here, the assurance on which a defendant’s plea was predicated is ineffectual to preserve the right to appeal, he or she is entitled, if he or she wishes, to withdraw the plea of guilty … .

Here, it is clear from the record that the defendant pleaded guilty in reliance upon a promise from the Supreme Court that, upon his plea of guilty, he would retain the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30. However, that promise could not be fulfilled …. Since the defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty … , the judgment of conviction must be reversed, his plea vacated, and the matter remitted … . People v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 08288, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEAS, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, GUILTY PLEAS, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, VACATION OF (APPEALS,  DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT))

OFFICER’S PURSUIT, FORCIBLE STOP, DETENTION AND ARREST OF FLEEING DEFENDANT NOT JUSTIFIED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS AND ITEMS SEIZED IN SEARCHES PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress statements and seized property (from the search of his person and home) based upon an unjustified street stop was properly granted. Fifteen minutes after receiving a report that the victim of a robbery had found his stolen car, Deputy Mauser drove around the block in the vicinity of the stolen car and saw defendant “walking pretty fast” “with a purpose.” When Mauser activated his lights and got out of his car, the defendant fled and Mauser followed, forcibly stopped, detained and arrested him:

​

In arguing that Mauser had, at least, a founded suspicion of criminality, the People rely heavily on defendant’s geographic proximity to the stolen vehicle. However, time and again, courts have held that geographic location, without more, is insufficient to sustain a suspicion of criminality … . Although Mauser testified that he arrived in the area 13 to 14 minutes after receiving the dispatch, the record is devoid of any indication that Mauser possessed information — such as the precise time that the vehicle was reported as found or how long it had been there prior to the report — that could lead to the reasonable inference that the person or persons involved in the theft of the vehicle might still be in the area. Nor does the record establish that Mauser was acting on reliable information identifying or describing the person suspected to have stolen the vehicle … . Rather, Mauser solely relied on defendant’s location in relation to the area in which the vehicle was reportedly found and the fact that he was walking at a brisk pace at 2:53 a.m. on a cold winter day. Together, these facts were insufficient to form a founded suspicion of criminality, so as to justify the common-law right to inquire … .

In any event, even if Mauser’s initial encounter with defendant was considered to be a level one stop or if Mauser were found to have possessed a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot to justify a level two stop, defendant had the constitutional right to be let alone and, by disregarding Mauser’s directive to stop, defendant did not elevate the level of suspicion to a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been, was being or was about to be committed… . While “[f]light, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, could provide the predicate necessary to justify pursuit” … , the requisite additional facts supporting criminality were lacking here … . Accordingly, Mauser’s pursuit and forcible stop and detention of defendant were improper, and County Court properly suppressed the physical evidence found on defendant’s person and in his home, as well as any statements he made to police … . People v Rose, 2017 NY Slip Op 08217, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOPS, OFFICER’S PURSUIT, FORCIBLE STOP, DETENTION AND ARREST OF FLEEING DEFENDANT NOT JUSTIFIED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS AND ITEMS SEIZED IN SEARCHES PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, OFFICER’S PURSUIT, FORCIBLE STOP, DETENTION AND ARREST OF FLEEING DEFENDANT NOT JUSTIFIED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS AND ITEMS SEIZED IN SEARCHES PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, OFFICER’S PURSUIT, FORCIBLE STOP, DETENTION AND ARREST OF FLEEING DEFENDANT NOT JUSTIFIED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS AND ITEMS SEIZED IN SEARCHES PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))’SEARCH AND SEIZURE (STREET STOPS, MOTION TO SUPPRESS, OFFICER’S PURSUIT, FORCIBLE STOP, DETENTION AND ARREST OF FLEEING DEFENDANT NOT JUSTIFIED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS AND ITEMS SEIZED IN SEARCHES PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD 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