You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined, in the interest of justice (error not preserved), the defendant was deprived of his right to confront a witness against him. A witness to the stabbing, Torres, could not be located and did not testify at the trial. Before it was clear Torres would not testify, two officers had already testified to facts that made it obvious Torres had identified the defendant as the perpetrator:

​

The record reveals … that the trial court understood full well the risk that the jurors, based on the detailed testimony of the arresting officers, might conclude that Torres—now a nontestifying witness—had identified the defendant as one of the perpetrators. Before summations, the court expressly warned both sides: “if I find that either of you are making any representation to this jury that Mr. Jose Torres made an identification of the defendant you will regret it.” Later, the court again warned the prosecutor in the following terms: “[S]ince Jose Torres did not testify, there is no way you are going to argue to this jury or infer to this jury in any way, shape or form that Jose Torres made an identification. Because that’s clearly the only import of your subsequent questioning about what did you do afterwards? Of course, the defendant got arrested. So it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand Jose Torres obviously identified something in this case.”

Both sides followed the court’s instructions during summations. However, during the jury’s deliberations, the jurors specifically requested a readback of [a police officer’s] testimony regarding “what Jose Torres told him relating to the perpetrator’s identification and what happened when he identified the defendant.” The requested testimony was read to the jury without any limiting instruction.

Under the unusual circumstances presented, the jury’s note demonstrates that the risk foreshadowed by the trial court had materialized, namely, that the jury had inferred from the arresting officers’ testimony that Torres had identified the defendant as one of Rivera’s attackers. Although neither side can be faulted for the introduction of the arresting officers’ testimony at a time when everyone believed in good faith that Torres would testify, once it became clear that Torres would not be produced as a witness, the arresting officers’ testimonial hearsay regarding the information conveyed to them by Torres violated the defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him … . People v Tavarez, 2017 NY Slip Op 07756, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  (UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFRONTATION, UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (CRIMINAL LAW, UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT)

,

DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed, over a dissent, defendant’s robbery and kidnapping convictions. The robbery first degree conviction was premised upon the use of duct tape over the victim’s mouth and around the victim’s wrists as constituting a dangerous instrument capable of inflicting serious injury. The kidnapping conviction was premised upon the restraint of the victim with duct tape. The dissent argued the tape was not a dangerous instrument and, under the facts, kidnapping merged with the robbery:

Here … the duct tape used by the defendant constituted a dangerous instrument. “Any instrument, article or substance, no matter how innocuous it may appear to be when used for its legitimate purpose, becomes a dangerous instrument when it is used in a manner which renders it readily capable of causing serious physical injury. The object itself need not be inherently dangerous. It is the temporary use rather than the inherent vice of the object which brings it within the purview of the statute” … . …

… [T]he convictions of kidnapping in the second degree and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree did not merge with the robbery convictions. The defendant’s act of locking the complainant inside the storage unit was a crime in itself committed after the robbery had been completed that did not merge therewith … . People v Williams, 2017 NY Slip Op 07758, Second Dept 11-8-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT))/ROBBERY (DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT))’KIDNAPPING  (DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT))/MERGER (CRIMINAL LAW, DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT))/DUCT TAPE (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on the intoxication defense in this murder and manslaughter case (two victims). Defense counsel had requested jury charges on the justification defense and lesser included offenses. It is possible defense counsel made a strategic decision against requesting the intoxication defense instruction:

​

Assuming, without deciding, that the evidence at trial was sufficient to warrant an intoxication charge … , defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request that charge in this case … . Defense counsel prudently pursued a justification defense, which would have been a total defense to the top count of murder in the second degree. Moreover, defense counsel successfully requested the lesser-included offenses of manslaughter in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree, and the latter count was submitted over the People’s objection. Defense counsel could have strategically determined that requesting an intoxication charge would have undermined, or distracted from, the justification defense in this particular case. Although reasonable legal minds may differ on the better strategy with respect to a charge of intoxication, we cannot second-guess defense counsel’s decision with the benefit of hindsight. Accordingly, the defendant has not demonstrated the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel’s failure to request an intoxication charge … . People v Pagan, 2017 NY Slip Op 07753, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, AILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT))

,

ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest in the interest of justice (error not preserved), determined the arrest was not authorized. The complainant told the police a man in a white BMW had pointed a gun at him. When the complainant saw the defendant and another man standing near a white BMW he said “that’s them.” Because the officers did not know which of the two men pointed the gun at the complainant, they did not have probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time he fled:

​

A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he or she intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer from effectuating an authorized arrest of himself or herself or another person … . “A key element of resisting arrest is the existence of an authorized arrest, including a finding that the arrest was premised on probable cause” … . Although the defendant’s contention that the prosecution failed to present legally sufficient evidence of an authorized arrest is unpreserved for appellate review … , we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we agree with the defendant that the evidence was not legally sufficient to establish the element of authorized arrest because, as a matter of law, the evidence failed to establish that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. Generally, information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of a specific crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest … . However, at the time that the complainant pointed to the defendant and [another] and stated “that’s them,” the police officers had only been informed that one individual pointed a firearm at the complainant. Therefore, under the circumstances presented here, the officers could not have concluded that it was more probable than not that the defendant … had been driving the white BMW and pointed a firearm at the complainant. Accordingly, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crime of resisting arrest. People v Andrews, 2017 NY Slip Op 07747, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS  (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT))/RESISTING ARREST (ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT))/ARREST (PROBABLE CAUSE, ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT))

ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the motion to suppress physical evidence (stolen property and a handgun) and subsequent statements made at the police station should have been granted. All charges except the traffic violations which led to the vehicle stop were dismissed. The arresting officer observed the defendant make an illegal turn and run a red light. Shortly after the vehicle stop, before the officers had any reason to suspect defendant’s involvement in a recent robbery, the arresting officer asked defendant whether he had anything illegal in the car. The Second Department held that question was not justified by a suspicion of criminal activity:

​

The evidence established that the officer did not have a “founded suspicion that criminality [was] afoot” that would justify his question as to whether the defendant had anything illegal in the vehicle … . Although the stop was justified by the traffic violations, the intrusiveness of the officer’s conduct exceeded that which is permissible during a normal traffic stop … . …

 “[A] request for information involves basic, nonthreatening questions regarding, for instance, identity, address or destination. . . . Once [an] officer asks more pointed questions . . . the officer is no longer merely seeking information . . . [and the inquiry] must be supported by a founded suspicion that criminality is afoot”… .

​

Thus, the … handbag, the cell phone, and the camera should have been suppressed as fruit of an illegal search, as well as the gun that was subsequently found upon an inventory of the vehicle … .

…[T]he suppression record did not demonstrate that the causal connection between the illegal search and the defendant’s statements was sufficiently attenuated to purge the taint of the illegal search… . People v Newson, 2017 NY Slip Op 07752, Second Dept, 11-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC STOPS (ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, TRAFFIC STOPS, ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SUPPRESSION, TRAFFIC STOPS, ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined criminal contempt charges were not precluded by the double jeopardy rule. As part of a neglect proceeding defendant admitted violating orders of protection. Although a 60-day period of incarceration was part of the disposition, it was repeatedly delayed as the court monitored defendant’s compliance (and was never imposed). Because the incarceration was deemed to induce compliance with Family Court’s orders, it was remedial, not punitive in nature. Therefore a subsequent prosecution for criminal contempt, arising from the violations of the orders of protection, did not violate the double jeopardy prohibition:

 

The double jeopardy protections of the US and NY Constitutions “shield a defendant from multiple criminal punishments arising from the same offense” … . Whether double jeopardy bars a criminal prosecution subsequent to a finding of contempt or similar violation of a court order depends not on the labels used to describe the previously imposed sentence, but on “the character and purpose” of that sentence … . In a contempt matter, the sentence imposed for violation of a court order is remedial if it was intended “to coerce compliance” with a court order … . By contrast, when “a contemnor is sentenced to imprisonment for a definite period which cannot be affected — that is, ended — by the contemnor’s compliance with the law [or a court order], then the contempt is not remedial but punitive” … . Double jeopardy precludes “a subsequent prosecution where a prior contempt sentence serves a punitive rather than remedial purpose” … . However, if the imposed sentence was remedial, double jeopardy does not apply … . People v Lamica, 2017 NY Slip Op 07646, Third Dept 11-2-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY LAW, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, CONTEMPT, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))/CONTEMPT (FAMILY LAW, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, CONTEMPT, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FAMILY LAW, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))

,

DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the state trooper properly stopped the defendant, which led to his arrest for DWI, because the defendant had his high beams on as he approached the trooper:

​

Petitioner contends that the revocation of his driver’s license must be reversed because the trooper’s testimony at the revocation hearing was insufficient to establish that he violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (3), thereby rendering the traffic stop unlawful. We disagree. A police officer may lawfully execute a traffic stop of a vehicle when he or she has probable cause to believe that the driver of the vehicle has committed a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law … . Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (3), a driver shall operate his or her headlights in such a manner “that dazzling light does not interfere with the driver of [an] approaching vehicle.” To establish such a violation, it must be shown that the operator of the motor vehicle used his or her high beams within 500 feet of an approaching vehicle and that the use of such high beams interfered with the vision of that driver by “hampering or hindering [his or her] vision” … .

At the hearing, the trooper testified that he was traveling westbound … , when he observed petitioner’s vehicle approximately 500 feet away in the eastbound lane of travel with his high beams activated. The trooper testified that petitioner’s high beams caused “a glare to [his] vision” and affected his driving insofar as he had to “adjust [his] eyes.” In our view, such testimony sufficiently established that he had probable cause to believe that petitioner had committed a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law … and, together with the negative inference that the Appeals Board permissibly drew from petitioner’s failure to testify at the hearing … , we conclude that the determination was supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Barr v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 2017 NY Slip Op 07664, Third Dept 11-2-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (HIGH BEAMS, DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC STOPS (DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT)/HIGH BEAMS (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))/REVOCATION (DRIVER’S LICENSE, DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))/DRIVER’S LICENSE (REVOCATION, DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))REFUSAL (CHEMICAL TEST, DWI, DRIVER’S LICENSE REVOCATION, DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (TRAFFIC STOP, REVOCATION HEARING, DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT))

,

MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION CAN BE BASED UPON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, NOT SHOWN HERE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, in part on the ground of actual innocence, was properly denied. The court explained the standard of proof for actual innocence:

In People v Hamilton (115 AD3d 12 [2014]), the [2nd] Department determined that a claim of actual innocence must be established with clear and convincing evidence of “factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency of evidence of guilt and must be based upon reliable evidence which was not presented at the trial” … . While we recognize that in People v Caldavado (26 NY3d 1034 [2015]) the Court of Appeals opted not to determine whether a freestanding claim of actual innocence is viable … , we concur with the analysis set forth in Hamilton and find that such a claim may be raised pursuant CPL 440.10 (1) (h) … . * * *

In our view, the evidence submitted at the hearing failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant did not murder the victims. Much of the evidence presented at the hearing was also presented to the jury, which considered and rejected defendant’s explanation, and the jury’s verdict was upheld on appeal … . At best, the additional evidence submitted in support of the motion to vacate arguably raised “[m]ere doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, or a preponderance of conflicting evidence as to the defendant’s guilt,” neither of which is sufficient to support a motion to vacate a judgment based on actual innocence … . People v Mosley, 2017 NY Slip Op 07648, Third Dept 11-2-17

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION CAN BE BASED UPON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, NOT SHOWN HERE (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, VACATE CONVICTION, ACTUAL INNOCENCE, MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION CAN BE BASED UPON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, NOT SHOWN HERE (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (ACTUAL INNOCENCE, MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION CAN BE BASED UPON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, NOT SHOWN HERE (THIRD DEPT))/ACTUAL INNOCENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION CAN BE BASED UPON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, NOT SHOWN HERE (THIRD DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, BECAUSE SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES COULD ONLY BE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO VACATE, ALL THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, HERE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Taylor, over a dissent, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should have been granted. Even though some of the ineffective assistance claims could be determined from the original record (and therefore should have been raised on appeal), because some of the claims could not be determined from the record, the court could consider all the ineffective assistance issues:

​

… [W]e do not find that all of the alleged failures on the part of trial counsel involve matters adequately reflected in the record that could have been raised upon direct appeal. Defendant’s argument that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the cabdriver “is dependent upon [a] statement[] to the police that [is] outside the record” and, therefore, was properly raised in the context of the instant CPL 440.10 motion … . Defendant also faults trial counsel for failing to request that the crime of assault in the third degree … be submitted to the jury as a lesser included offense of assault in the second degree … . While it is apparent from the face of the record that counsel did not request submission of assault in the third degree as a lesser included offense, it is axiomatic that “the decision to request or consent to the submission of a lesser included offense is often based on strategic considerations, taking into account a myriad of factors, including the strength of the People’s case” … . Because defendant’s complaint about counsel in this regard is predicated on counsel’s strategy, or lack thereof, which is not discernable from the face of the record, we likewise find that this claim of ineffectiveness may properly be advanced by way of a CPL 440.10 motion … .

The two other allegations of ineffectiveness raised on the motion — that counsel failed to object to County Court’s Allen charge and failed to sufficiently articulate and support a request for an instruction on the defense of justification under Penal Law § 35.05 — are, as defendant concedes, based on matters that appear on the face of the record. Yet, relying on People v Maxwell (89 AD3d 1108 [2d Dept 2011]), defendant claims that these record-based allegations of ineffectiveness may appropriately be considered together with his nonrecord-based allegations in the context of this CPL 440.10 motion, thereby permitting review of his claim of ineffective assistance in its entirety. … [W]e agree. People v Taylor, 2017 NY Slip Op 07649, Third Dept 11-2-17

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, BECAUSE SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES COULD ONLY BE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO VACATE, ALL THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, HERE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, BECAUSE SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES COULD ONLY BE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO VACATE, ALL THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, HERE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, BECAUSE SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES COULD ONLY BE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO VACATE, ALL THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, HERE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, BECAUSE SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES COULD ONLY BE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO VACATE, ALL THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, HERE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION IN THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT AND WITNESSES BY THE TRIAL JUDGE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS BEING INCARCERATED DURING THE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction in this murder case because the trial judge took over the questioning of one of the complaining witness and intervened in the questioning of the defendant. The court noted the prosecutor should not have questioned the defendant about his being incarcerated during the trial:

​

During the course of the trial, the Supreme Court repeatedly and prejudicially questioned the defendant, who testified in his own behalf, and also extensively intervened in the questioning of prosecution witnesses. Although defense counsel did not specifically object to the court’s questioning of the witnesses … .

​

While trial judges play a vital role in “clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial,” their power to examine witnesses “is one that should be exercised sparingly” … . Indeed, such power “carries with it so many risks of unfairness that it should be a rare instance when the court rather than counsel examines a witness” … .

Here, the Supreme Court effectively took over the direct examination of one of the complaining witnesses at key moments in her testimony where she was describing how the defendant shot the victim … . Moreover, in its extensive questioning of the defendant, the court repeatedly highlighted apparent inconsistencies in the defendant’s testimony. Viewing the record as a whole, the court assumed the appearance, if not the function, of an advocate at the trial by its extensive examination of certain witnesses … . Accordingly, we must remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial.

As a new trial must be ordered, we note that it was improper for the prosecutor to elicit from the defendant the fact that he was incarcerated pending trial … , as no legitimate State interest was served by disclosing that information under the circumstances of this case … . People v Estevez, 2017 NY Slip Op 07615, Second Dept 11-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION IN THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT AND WITNESSES BY THE TRIAL JUDGE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS BEING INCARCERATED DURING THE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION IN THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT AND WITNESSES BY THE TRIAL JUDGE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS BEING INCARCERATED DURING THE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION IN THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT AND WITNESSES BY THE TRIAL JUDGE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS BEING INCARCERATED DURING THE TRIAL (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