You are here: / Criminal Law

HOT PURSUIT JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS ARREST IN DEFENDANT’S HOME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress his statements based upon his warrantless arrest in the garage of his home was properly denied. Defendant had failed to stop, led the arresting officer on a high speed chase, and hid in the rafters of his garage:

​

… [T]he People established that the detective’s entry was justified by the doctrine of hot pursuit. “[S]ubject only to carefully drawn and narrow exceptions, a warrantless search of an individual’s home is per se unreasonable and hence unconstitutional” … . However, “exigent circumstances or a true hot pursuit’ may justify a warrantless entry”… . “[A] criminal suspect may not thwart an otherwise proper arrest which has been set in motion in a public place by retreating into his residence”… . Here, the exigent circumstances justifying the hot pursuit of the defendant into his garage included the defendant’s observed erratic and dangerous driving, the crashing and abandoning of his vehicle, and the police officers’ peaceful entry through the open door of the garage … . People v Caputo, 2017 NY Slip Op 07614, Second Dept 11-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (HOT PURSUIT JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS ARREST IN DEFENDANT’S HOME (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, HOT PURSUIT JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS ARREST IN DEFENDANT’S HOME (SECOND DEPT))/WARRANTLESS ARREST (HOT PURSUIT JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS ARREST IN DEFENDANT’S HOME (SECOND DEPT))/PAYTON RULE (WARRANTLESS ARREST, HOT PURSUIT JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS ARREST IN DEFENDANT’S HOME (SECOND DEPT))/HOT PURSUIT (WARRENTLESS ARREST, HOT PURSUIT JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS ARREST IN DEFENDANT’S HOME (SECOND DEPT)

, ,

WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ENCOMPASSED BY WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the denial of youthful offender status was not appealable as it was encompassed by the waiver of appeal. The Fourth Department further determined the purported waiver of defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of probation was not valid because there was no relationship between the waiver and the sexual-abuse offense to which defendant pled guilty. The invalid conditions allowed searches of his person, home and personal property, breath, blood and urine testing, and prohibited use or possession of alcohol:

​

Defendant … contends that various conditions of his probation are not authorized by Penal Law § 65.10. We agree with defendant that his contention is not precluded by the waiver of the right to appeal and does not require preservation inasmuch as his challenges to those conditions implicate the legality of the sentence … . We agree with defendant that the document he signed requiring him to consent to waive his Fourth Amendment right protecting him from unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, home, and personal property, and to submit to chemical tests of his breath, blood, or urine, is not enforceable because it was not related to the probationary goal of rehabilitation … . The waiver and consent to search was ostensibly based on defendant’s acknowledgment that his criminal behavior was related to drug/alcohol abuse, but in fact there was no evidence that defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs when he committed the offense or had a history of drug or alcohol abuse … . For similar reasons, we agree with defendant that special condition nine of the conditions of probation, which required him to abstain from the use or possession of alcoholic beverages and to submit to appropriate alcohol testing, is also not enforceable and must be stricken. People v Saraceni, 2017 NY Slip Op 06732, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ENCOMPASSED BY WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ENCOMPASSED BY WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (PROBATION CONDITIONS, WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (PROBATION CONDITIONS, WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID (FOURTH DEPT))/PROBATION (WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ENCOMPASSED BY WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/WAIVER OF APPEAL (WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ENCOMPASSED BY WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/SEXUAL ABUSE (PROBATION CONDITIONS, WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ENCOMPASSED BY WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE FIRST STEP OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE EXERCISED BY THE PEOPLE, BUT THE NEXT STEPS IN THE BATSON PROCEDURE WERE NOT TAKEN, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO COMPLETE THE BATSON PROCEDURE (FOURTH DEPT). 

The Fourth Department determined defendant had adequately raised a Batson challenge to the prosecutor’s removal of a juror. Because the next steps in the Batson procedure were not taken the case was remitted for that purpose (after a jury trial and conviction):

​

We agree with defendant that he met his initial burden on his Batson application by demonstrating that the prosecution exercised a peremptory challenge to remove a member of a cognizable racial group from the venire, “and that there exist facts and other relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecution used its peremptory challenge[] to exclude [that] potential juror[] because of [her] race”… . We note that “the first-step burden in a Batson challenge is not intended to be onerous” … , and that the initial burden is met when ” the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose’ ” … . Here, defendant is African-American, and the first prospective juror to be peremptorily challenged by the People was the only African-American on the panel. Neither the People nor defendant asked any questions of the prospective juror at issue during voir dire, and County Court’s general questioning of the panel raised no issues that would distinguish her from the other prospective jurors. Inasmuch as there is a basis in the record to infer that the People exercised the peremptory challenge in a discriminatory manner, the burden shifted to the People to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for striking the juror, and the court then should have determined whether the proffered reason was pretextual … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for that purpose … . People v Davis, 2017 NY Slip Op 06790, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE FIRST STEP OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE EXERCISED BY THE PEOPLE, BUT THE NEXT STEPS IN THE BATSON PROCEDURE WERE NOT TAKEN, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO COMPLETE THE BATSON PROCEDURE (FOURTH DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE FIRST STEP OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE EXERCISED BY THE PEOPLE, BUT THE NEXT STEPS IN THE BATSON PROCEDURE WERE NOT TAKEN, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO COMPLETE THE BATSON PROCEDURE (FOURTH DEPT))/BATSON PROCEDURE (JURORS, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE FIRST STEP OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE EXERCISED BY THE PEOPLE, BUT THE NEXT STEPS IN THE BATSON PROCEDURE WERE NOT TAKEN, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO COMPLETE THE BATSON PROCEDURE (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

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))

 

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