You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant had asserted his right to counsel by saying he would not go to the police station without a parent or an attorney. Therefore the motion to suppress the subsequent statement should have been granted. Before the defendant went to the station, the police, at defendant’s request, took the defendant to see a man defendant described as like a father to him. The man accompanied the police and defendant to the station and spoke with the defendant before the defendant waived his rights a made a statement:

​

In People v Stroh (48 NY2d 1000, 1001), the defendant told the police that “he would like to have either an attorney or a priest to talk to, to have present.’ ” The Court held that, “[b]y making this request, [the defendant] asserted his right to counsel” (id.). We see no relevant distinction in the facts presented in this case, and we are therefore constrained to conclude that the statements made by defendant to the detective at the police station must be suppressed because defendant asserted his right to counsel. …

We conclude that the court’s error is not harmless inasmuch as there is a “reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction” … . We therefore grant that part of the omnibus motion seeking to suppress the statements made by defendant at the police station … , and we grant a new trial … . People v Lewis, 2017 NY Slip Op 06776, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENT, DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER UNDER THE LAW OF WASHINGTON STATE, NEW YORK LAW PROPERLY REQUIRED REGISTRATION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE NOT VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the fact that defendant was not required to register as a sex offender under the law of Washington state did not affect the requirement that he register in New York. The Full Faith and Credit Clause was not implicated:

​

Defendant argues that requiring him to register in New York when a Washington court order relieved him of the obligation to register in that state violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause (see US Const, art IV, § 1). However, this clause is designed “to avoid conflicts between [s]tates in adjudicating the same matters” … and “is not implicated where the issue decided by a court in [another] state is different from the issue being decided by a New York court” … . Here, Washington and New York have each separately adjudicated the risks posed by defendant to their respective citizens, and each state has imposed sex offender registration requirements pursuant to the governing sex offender registration laws in each state and, accordingly, neither state has adjudicated the “same matter” in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause .., .

… [F]ull faith and credit principles do not require New York to assign an offender the same risk level as that imposed by the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred … . …

… [Because] each state is assessing the risks posed to its own citizens and vulnerable populations and applying its own registration laws, the courts are not adjudicating the “same matters” in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause … . People v Hlatky, 2017 NY Slip Op 06693, Third Dept 9-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER UNDER THE LAW OF WASHINGTON STATE, NEW YORK LAW PROPERLY REQUIRED REGISTRATION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE NOT VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA)  (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER UNDER THE LAW OF WASHINGTON STATE, NEW YORK LAW PROPERLY REQUIRED REGISTRATION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE NOT VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER UNDER THE LAW OF WASHINGTON STATE, NEW YORK LAW PROPERLY REQUIRED REGISTRATION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE NOT VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT))/FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER UNDER THE LAW OF WASHINGTON STATE, NEW YORK LAW PROPERLY REQUIRED REGISTRATION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE NOT VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a substantive decision, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea on ineffective assistance grounds should have been granted. Defendant was not informed by his attorney that the plea would trigger mandatory deportation:

​

… [D]efense counsel incorrectly advised the defendant that his plea of guilty to grand larceny in the second degree would preserve his eligibility to apply for a cancellation of removal, when, in fact, his conviction constituted an aggravated felony, rendering him mandatorily deportable and ineligible for cancellation of removal … . Courts have recognized the significance to a defendant, in pleading guilty, of a possibility of discretionary relief from removal … . The lack of such a possibility here was “succinct, clear, and explicit” and could have been determined simply from reading the text of the statute … . Thus, counsel had a duty to give correct advice as to the immigration consequences of the plea … . Counsel failed to do so, instead misadvising the defendant that there was a possibility of receiving a cancellation of removal. * * *

​

Given the circumstances here, including the defendant’s focus on the immigration consequences of his plea, his large incentive to negotiate a plea which did not render him mandatorily deportable without eligibility for relief, the possibility of offering the People such a plea with the same sentence or even a longer aggregate sentence, and the fact that the prosecutor was unconcerned with the immigration consequences of the plea, the defendant established a reasonable probability that he could have negotiated a plea agreement that did not impose mandatory deportation without eligibility for relief … . Thus, the defendant established the requisite prejudice from counsel’s misadvice under Strickland, and further that counsel’s error was “egregious and prejudicial” such that it denied him meaningful representation under the New York Constitution … . People v Abdallah, 2017 NY Slip Op 06657, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEPORTATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEPORTATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEPORTATION,  DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT))

MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined manifest necessity justified the declaration of the mistrial over the defendant’s objection because a crucial prosecution witness (the complainant in a sex offense prosecution) could not be located. Although there was no evidence the defendant caused the witness’s unavailability, there was evidence the witness’s mother was responsible:

​

The petitioner was charged with course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree and predatory sexual assault against a child, and the case proceeded to trial. After the jury was sworn, but before opening statements were made and before any testimony was offered, the prosecutor requested three consecutive continuances, as the complainant and her mother could not be located . * * *

​

When a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, a retrial is precluded unless ” there was manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would be defeated'” … . ” Manifest necessity'” means a ” high degree of necessity'” based on reasons that are ” actual and substantial'”… . Moreover, before declaring a mistrial, a court must explore all appropriate alternatives and must provide a sufficient basis in the record for resorting to this “drastic measure” … . Where a mistrial is premised upon the claimed unavailability of crucial prosecution evidence, including witnesses, the validity of that claim is subject to the “strictest scrutiny” since a prosecutor is not entitled to a mistrial merely to gain a more favorable opportunity to convict … .

Here, the prosecutor made a sufficient showing that the unavailability of the 13-year-old complainant, who had absconded to an unknown location with her mother, could be factually attributed to some person acting on the petitioner’s behalf … . Moreover, the trial court properly gave the prosecutor additional time to find the witness and considered other alternatives, including the prosecutor’s application for leave to introduce at the trial the witness’s grand jury testimony.  Matter of Palacios v Singas, 2017 NY Slip Op 06652, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT))/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT))/MANIFEST NECESSITY (MISTRIAL, CRIMINAL LAW, MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT))

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON ARSON FOURTH (RECKLESS) AS A LESSER INCLUDED OF ARSON SECOND (INTENTIONAL), NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s arson second conviction, determined the jury should have been instructed on the lesser included offense of arson fourth:

​

The relevant difference between these crimes in this case is that second-degree arson involves intentionally damaging a building by starting a fire, while fourth-degree arson involves recklessly damaging a building by intentionally starting a fire … . Viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, there was a reasonable view of the evidence that he did not intend to damage his apartment, or any other part of the building, by setting a fire to a video game console, and that his sole object in doing so was to kill himself through smoke inhalation. It cannot be said that the only interpretation of defendant’s actions was that he intended to damage the building by fire. Although a natural and probable consequence of setting the fire was that the fire would damage the building, this did not conclusively establish such an intent, which was for the jury to decide … . On these facts, the jury could have found that, rather than actually intending to cause damage, defendant was “aware of and consciously disregard[ed] a substantial and unjustifiable risk that [damage would] occur” … . People v Acevedo, 2017 NY Slip Op 06626, First Dept 9-26-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON ARSON FOURTH (RECKLESS) AS A LESSER INCLUDED OF ARSON SECOND (INTENTIONAL), NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, ARSON, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON ARSON FOURTH (RECKLESS) AS A LESSER INCLUDED OF ARSON SECOND (INTENTIONAL), NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (ARSON, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON ARSON FOURTH (RECKLESS) AS A LESSER INCLUDED OF ARSON SECOND (INTENTIONAL), NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/ARSON (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON ARSON FOURTH (RECKLESS) AS A LESSER INCLUDED OF ARSON SECOND (INTENTIONAL), NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO EXPRESSED BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the for cause challenge to a jury should have been granted. The juror exhibited a bias in favor of the credibility of police officers:

​

The court should have granted defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror, a police officer who stated on voir dire that he believed that the testimony of police witnesses would be accurate, except insofar as they were relaying inaccurate information provided by a victim or other witness. Pressed by defense counsel on whether he thought it was possible for a police witness to lie, exaggerate, or be mistaken, the prospective juror allowed that there was “a little room” for this and stated that he “suppose[d]” it was possible.

“[A] prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial” … . Bias expressed by a prospective juror is purged only when, in response to additional inquiry, the juror is able to “voice[] with conviction” that he or she will be able to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence and the court’s instructions … . The link between the biased state of mind previously indicated by the prospective juror’s statements and the assurance of the ability to render an impartial verdict “must be evident” … . “Where there remains any doubt in the wake of such statements, . . . the prospective jurors should be discharged for cause” … .

The panelist clearly showed a predisposition to believe that police officers testify truthfully … . Viewed as a whole, his responses to followup questions did not “expressly state that his prior state of mind . . . [would] not influence his verdict” … . People v Whitefield, 2017 NY Slip Op 06618, First Dept 9-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO EXPRESSED BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO EXPRESSED BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGE  (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO EXPRESSED BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined that the People did not demonstrate defendant understood he had a right to an attorney at the time he made statement, even if he could not afford one. Both of his statements should have been suppressed:

​

… [T]he People failed to establish that defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights before giving oral and written statements to a detective at the precinct. In a videotaped statement to the prosecutor, made several hours after the statements to the detective, defendant said, “I cannot pay for a lawyer, why do I write yes or no.” The prosecutor then said, “[D]o you understand if you can’t, the Court will give you one?,” to which defendant responded, “[S]o I put no.” After the prosecutor reread the warnings defendant stated, “[Y]es, I need to have a lawyer . . . I cannot pay a lawyer.” The prosecutor next asked, “[B]ut do you understand that one will be provided if you cannot pay,” and defendant again stated “yes, but I can’t pay for a lawyer.” Finally, the prosecutor told defendant, “[O]kay, so you can write yes’ if you understand, and no’ if you don’t understand,” and defendant said, “[Y]es, I do understand.” Based on this exchange, the court correctly suppressed defendant’s videotaped statement. Given defendant’s failure to comprehend that he had the right to an attorney at the time of his statements if he could not afford one, it is evident that defendant’s previous statement to the detective should also be suppressed … .

We find that the error was not harmless, because there is a reasonable possibility that it contributed to defendant’s guilty plea … . People v Flores, 2017 NY Slip Op 06629, First Dept 9-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (STATEMENTS, CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))/MIRANDA WARNINGS DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))

 

HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR RELIEF FOR ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL AND IS NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL A PRISONER IS ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELEASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that habeas corpus is not a vehicle for relief for issues which could have been raised on appeal and is not available until the maximum sentence has been served (must be entitled to immediate release):

​

Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition, as “habeas corpus relief is not an appropriate remedy for resolving claims that could have been or that were raised on direct appeal or in a postconviction motion” … . Petitioner’s contentions regarding his sentence were or could have been raised on his direct appeal and in his CPL article 440 motions to vacate the judgment and sentence … . In addition, even if petitioner’s claims were determined to have merit and his sentences were to run concurrently, he would not be entitled to immediate release from prison and, consequently, habeas relief is not appropriate … . To that end, it is the expiration of the maximum sentence, and not the conditional release date, that is required to establish entitlement to release in a habeas corpus proceeding, and petitioner has not yet reached the maximum expiration of his sentences even if they were concurrent … . People v D’Amico, 2017 NY Slip Op 06574, Third Dept 9-21-17

​

​

Similar issue and result in People v Kirkpatrick, 2017 NY Slip Op 06578, Third Dept 9-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR RELIEF FOR ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL AND IS NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL A PRISONER IS ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELEASE (THIRD DEPT))/HABEAS CORPUS (HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR RELIEF FOR ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL AND IS NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL A PRISONER IS ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELEASE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the failure to file a predicate felony statement required resentencing, despite the failure to preserve the issue by an appropriate motion:

Defendant contends, among other things, that the resentence is invalid because a predicate felony statement was not filed in accordance with CPL 400.21 (2) before he was sentenced as a second felony drug offender … . Although this claim has not been preserved for our review due to defendant’s failure to make an appropriate motion … , under the particular circumstances presented, we exercise our discretion in the interest of justice to take corrective action … . The People concede and the record reveals that a predicate felony statement was never filed as is required by CPL 400.21 (2). In addition, there is no indication that defendant had notice that he would be sentenced as a second felony drug offender when he admitted to the probation violations or at resentencing. Consequently, defendant did not have an opportunity to contest his prior convictions. In view of this, the resentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court for resentencing … . People v Fenner, 2017 NY Slip Op 06483, Third Dept 9-14-17

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PREDICATE FELONY, SENTENCING, FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT, PRESERVATION, FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/SENTENCING (PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT, FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT (FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))

,

(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT HER GANG AFFILIATION, GANG MEMBERSHIP HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in affirming defendant’s conviction, noted that it was error to allow the prosecutor to cross-examine a defense witness about the witness’s gang affiliation. Gang membership had no relationship to the charges:

​

The Supreme Court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine a defense witness regarding her possible gang affiliations since there was no connection between gang membership and the alleged crime … . It was also improper to allow the prosecutor to introduce extrinsic evidence to impeach that witness’s credibility when she denied being affiliated with a gang … . However, because there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that these errors contributed to the defendant’s convictions, the errors were harmless … . People v Chinloy, 2017 NY Slip Op 06450, Second Dept 9-13-17

CRIMINAL LAW ((HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT HER GANG AFFILIATION, GANG MEMBERSHIP HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT HER GANG AFFILIATION, GANG MEMBERSHIP HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT))/GANGS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT HER GANG AFFILIATION, GANG MEMBERSHIP HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARGES (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