You are here: / Criminal Law
,

PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, determined the People had demonstrated the search of defendant’s car was a valid inventory search, despite the expectation contraband would be found. The defendant’s argument the search was a ruse depended upon the credibility of the police witnesses, a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be reached by the Court of Appeals:

​

“[T]he People met their burden of establishing that the [inventory] search was in accordance with procedure and resulted in a meaningful inventory list” and that the primary objectives of the search were to preserve the property located inside the vehicle and to protect police from a claim of lost property … . The fact that the officers knew that contraband might be recovered does “not invalidate the entire search” … . “The inventory here, while not a model, was sufficient to meet the constitutional minimum” … .

The determinations of the lower courts regarding the credibility of the officers and whether the inventory search was a ruse to look for contraband present mixed questions of law and fact … . A mixed question is presented when “the facts are disputed, where credibility is at issue or where reasonable minds may differ as to the inference[s] to be drawn” … . Inasmuch as there is record support for the lower courts’ conclusion that the primary purpose of the search was to inventory the property located in the vehicle, that issue is beyond further review by this Court … . People v Lee, 2017 NY Slip Op 06415, CtApp 9-12-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/INVENTORY SEARCH (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/APPEALS (COURT OF APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, INVENTORY SEARCH, PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))

,

STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a per curiam opinion with three extensive concurring opinions, determined the statutes criminalizing assisted suicide are constitutional in that they do not violate the due process or equal protection clauses.

​

Plaintiffs ask us to declare a constitutional right to “aid-in-dying,” which they define (and we refer to herein) as the right of a mentally competent and terminally ill person to obtain a prescription for a lethal dosage of drugs from a physician, to be taken at some point to cause death. Although New York has long recognized a competent adult’s right to forgo life-saving medical care, we reject plaintiffs’ argument that an individual has a fundamental constitutional right to aid-in-dying as they define it. We also reject plaintiffs’ assertion that the State’s prohibition on assisted suicide is not rationally related to legitimate state interests .. . . * * *

​

Our State’s equal protection guarantees are coextensive with the rights protected under the federal Equal Protection Clause … . In Vacco v Quill, the United States Supreme Court held that New York State’s laws banning assisted suicide do not unconstitutionally distinguish between individuals (521 US 793, 797 [1997]). As the Court explained, “[e]veryone, regardless of physical condition, is entitled, if competent, to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment; no one is permitted to assist a suicide. Generally, laws that apply evenhandedly to all unquestionably comply with equal protection” … . The Supreme Court has not retreated from that conclusion, and we see no reason to hold otherwise. * * *

​

… [T]he State pursues a legitimate purpose in guarding against the risks of mistake and abuse. The State may rationally seek to prevent the distribution of prescriptions for lethal dosages of drugs that could, upon fulfillment, be deliberately or accidentally misused. The State also has a significant interest in preserving life and preventing suicide, a serious public health problem … . As summarized by the Supreme Court, the State’s interests in prohibiting assisted suicide include: “prohibiting intentional killing and preserving life; preventing suicide; maintaining physicians’ role as their patients’ healers; protecting vulnerable people from indifference, prejudice, and psychological and financial pressure to end their lives; and avoiding a possible slide towards euthanasia” … . These legitimate and important State interests further “satisfy the constitutional requirement that a legislative classification bear a rational relation to some legitimate end” … . Myers v Schneiderman, 2017 NY Slip Op 06412, CtApp 9-7-17

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (ASSISTED SUICIDE, STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP)/SUICIDE (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ASSISTED SUICIDE, STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP)/ASSISTED SUICIDE, STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP)/CRIMINAL LAW (ASSISTED SUICIDE, STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP)

, ,

FAILURE TO CLEARLY INFORM DEFENDANT THAT PLEADING GUILTY TO AN AGGRAVATED FELONY TRIGGERS DEPORTATION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MERELY TELLING DEFENDANT THERE WAS A RISK OF DEPORTATION WAS NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant should be given the opportunity to move to vacate his guilty plea because defense counsel did not make it clear that pleading guilty to an aggravated felony triggered deportation. Informing defendant of a risk of deportation was not sufficient and constituted ineffective assistance of counsel:

​

Since an aggravated felony results in mandatory deportation … , counsel is under a duty to provide clear advice as to that consequence. It is thus ineffective assistance to advise a noncitizen of a mere risk or possibility that he “could be deported” … . People v Doumbia, 2017 NY Slip Op 06402, First Dept 9-5-17

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, FAILURE TO CLEARLY INFORM DEFENDANT THAT PLEADING GUILTY TO AN AGGRAVATED FELONY TRIGGERS DEPORTATION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MERELY TELLING DEFENDANT THERE WAS A RISK OF DEPORTATION WAS NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW,  FAILURE TO CLEARLY INFORM DEFENDANT THAT PLEADING GUILTY TO AN AGGRAVATED FELONY TRIGGERS DEPORTATION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MERELY TELLING DEFENDANT THERE WAS A RISK OF DEPORTATION WAS NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO CLEARLY INFORM DEFENDANT THAT PLEADING GUILTY TO AN AGGRAVATED FELONY TRIGGERS DEPORTATION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MERELY TELLING DEFENDANT THERE WAS A RISK OF DEPORTATION WAS NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT))

,

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, reversing defendant’s conviction for possession of a weapon, determined the jury should have been instructed on the innocent possession of a weapon defense. There was evidence that the defendant had taken the pistol away from decedent, who had struck him with it. Defendant walked away with the pistol. Three minutes later defendant was grabbed from behind by a man who was with the decedent. There was evidence the defendant shot the man and the decedent. The jury was instructed on the justification defense and acquitted the defendant of manslaughter:

​

When this evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, nothing he did or failed to do in the very brief interval between excusably obtaining the pistol and being confronted by the decedent and his companions constituted “us[ing the pistol] in a dangerous manner” … . Given the justification defense, which, as the court correctly determined, warranted a justification charge, the fact that defendant shot the decedent did not constitute a “dangerous use” barring the court from giving a temporary lawful possession charge. Courts have found that the firing of shots did not negate a defendant’s entitlement to a temporary lawful possession instruction where the shooting was justified and the possession was otherwise lawful. People v Bonilla, 2017 NY Slip Op 06405, First Dept 9-5-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/WEAPON, POSSESSION OF (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

,

TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR SIMILAR STABBING OF THE SAME VICTIM IF THE DEFENDANT CHOSE TO TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed the defendant’s conviction finding that evidence of a prior similar stabbing of the same victim was too prejudicial to be admissible. The evidence of defendant’s connection to the prior stabbing was weak. The victim refused to cooperate with the investigations into both stabbings. Therefore the trial court should not have ruled the defendant could be cross-examined about the prior stabbing if he chose to testify (he did not testify):

Although questioning concerning other crimes and past conduct is not automatically precluded simply because the crime or conduct inquired about is similar to the crime charged … , “cross-examination with respect to crimes or conduct similar to that of which the defendant is presently charged may be highly prejudicial, in view of the risk, despite the most clear and forceful limiting instructions to the contrary, that the evidence will be taken as some proof of the commission of the crime charged rather than be reserved solely to the issue of credibility” … . Thus, “a balance must be struck between the probative worth of evidence of prior specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts on the issue of the defendant’s credibility on the one hand, and on the other the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant, measured both by the impact of such evidence if it is admitted after his testimony and by the effect its probable introduction may have in discouraging him from taking the stand on his own behalf” … . Under the circumstances presented here, most notably the unsubstantiated evidence connecting the defendant to the uncharged crime involving the identical victim, which occurred three months earlier, the probative value was far outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. There was a strong likelihood that the uncharged crime would be viewed as evidence of propensity, rather than probative on the issue of credibility … . People v Ridenhour, 2017 NY Slip Op 06383, Second Dept 8-30-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SANDOVAL, TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR SIMILAR STABBING OF THE SAME VICTIM IF THE DEFENDANT CHOSE TO TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SANDOVAL, TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR SIMILAR STABBING OF THE SAME VICTIM IF THE DEFENDANT CHOSE TO TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/SANDOVAL (CRIMINAL LAW,  TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR SIMILAR STABBING OF THE SAME VICTIM IF THE DEFENDANT CHOSE TO TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT)/PRIOR CRIMES AND BAD ACTS (CRIMINAL LAW, SANDOVAL, TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR SIMILAR STABBING OF THE SAME VICTIM IF THE DEFENDANT CHOSE TO TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))

PEOPLE WERE UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY WAS THE RESULT OF DEFENDANT’S THREATS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO BE RELIEVED REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the People did not demonstrate, at a Sirois hearing, that a witness’s refusal to testify was the result of defendant’s threats. The trial court had ruled the witness’s grand jury testimony could be read to the jury. The Second Department also held the court should have inquired into the defense attorney’s request to be relieved because the defendant had filed a grievance against him:

At the Sirois hearing, the People were required to “demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant, by violence, threats or chicanery, caused a witness’s unavailability” … . Here, although the People presented evidence that the witness was afraid to testify, they failed to meet their heavy burden of showing that her fear was caused by a threat made by the defendant … .

Under the circumstances of this case, this error cannot be considered harmless … . Thus, the judgment must be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial … .

The Supreme Court also should not have denied defense counsel’s request to be relieved without first having made at least some minimal inquiry in light of defense counsel’s statement that the defendant had filed a grievance against him … . People v Middleton, 2017 NY Slip Op 06378, Second Dept 8-30-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE WERE UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY WAS THE RESULT OF DEFENDANT’S THREATS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO BE RELIEVED REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))/SIROIS HEARING (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE WERE UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY WAS THE RESULT OF DEFENDANT’S THREATS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO BE RELIEVED REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO BE RELIEVED REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT))

CONFUSION ABOUT THE EFFECT OF FINDING THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY BY VIRTUE OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIES TO A HIGHER COUNT THERE CAN BE NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ANY LESSER COUNT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because instructions to the jury and the verdict sheet created confusion about the effect of finding the defendant not guilty of the most serious offense based on the justification defense. The instructions gave the impression the jurors could continue to consider a lesser offense after finding the justification defense required a not guilty verdict on more serious offense:

“This Court has held that, in a case involving a claim of self-defense, it is error for the trial court not to instruct the jurors that, if they find the defendant not guilty of a greater charge on the basis of justification, they were not to consider any lesser counts” … . Such failure constitutes reversible error … . “Our precedent in this regard is sound and ineluctable. The defense of justification does not operate to excuse a criminal act, nor does it negate a particular element of a crime. Rather, by recognizing the use of force to be privileged under certain circumstances, it renders such conduct entirely lawful'” … .

… [W]hen instructing the jury on the verdict sheet, the court did not instruct that, if the jury found the defendant not guilty of a greater charge on the basis of justification, it was not to consider any lesser count, and the verdict sheet was inconsistent with that principle … . In particular, the verdict sheet, which made no reference to justification, instructed the jury that, if it found the defendant not guilty on count one or count two, the jury must “deliberate next on” the following count. Similarly, in explaining the verdict sheet, the court instructed the jury, if the verdict on count one or count two was not guilty, to “go on” and to “deliberate” on the next count, without explaining that they should not deliberate on any lesser-included count if the jury found the defendant not guilty based upon the People’s failure to disprove the defense of justification. People v Braithwaite, 2017 NY Slip Op 06369, Second Dept 8-30-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (CONFUSION ABOUT THE EFFECT OF FINDING THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY BY VIRTUE OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIES TO A HIGHER COUNT THERE CAN BE NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ANY LESSER COUNT (SECOND DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFUSION ABOUT THE EFFECT OF FINDING THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY BY VIRTUE OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIES TO A HIGHER COUNT THERE CAN BE NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ANY LESSER COUNT (SECOND DEPT))/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFUSION ABOUT THE EFFECT OF FINDING THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY BY VIRTUE OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIES TO A HIGHER COUNT THERE CAN BE NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ANY LESSER COUNT (SECOND DEPT))

PROSECUTOR’S REASONS FOR STRIKING TWO BLACK PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE PRETEXTUAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the prosecutor’s reasons for striking two black prospective jurors were pretextual:

… [T]he record demonstrates that the race-neutral reasons for challenging prospective jurors Nos. 2 and 8 were not applied equally to exclude other prospective jurors who were not black, even though those other jurors had answered the subject hypothetical questions in the same way that prospective jurors Nos. 2 and 8 had answered. Although the uneven application of race-neutral factors does not always indicate pretext where the prosecution can articulate other legitimate reasons to justify the uneven use of its challenges… , the prosecution here failed to do so. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the nonracial bases advanced by the prosecutor for challenging prospective jurors Nos. 2 and 8 were pretextual … . Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to a new trial …. . People v Brown, 2017 NY Slip Op 06289, Second Dept 8-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, BATSON CHALLENGE, PROSECUTOR’S REASONS FOR STRIKING TWO BLACK PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE PRETEXTUAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, BATSON CHALLENGE, PROSECUTOR’S REASONS FOR STRIKING TWO BLACK PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE PRETEXTUAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/BATSON CHALLENGE (PROSECUTOR’S REASONS FOR STRIKING TWO BLACK PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE PRETEXTUAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the record of a retention hearing for an insanity acquittee need not be sealed:

Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 does not, as respondent contends, require that the record of his retention proceeding be sealed. …

Respondent accepted a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect and, therefore, “avoid[ed] criminal penalties and . . . [became] subject to the CPL 330.20 scheme” … . As the Court of Appeals has consistently recognized, “[t]his places insanity acquittees in a significantly different posture than involuntarily committed civil patients” and, thus, justifies “rational differences between procedures for commitment and release applicable to defendants found not responsible and persons involuntarily committed under the Mental Hygiene Law” … . The distinction between an insanity acquittee, as we have here, and an involuntarily committed civil patient is apparent by the Legislature’s enactment of a separate statutory scheme — CPL 330.20 — to address the commitment and retention procedures for persons found not responsible for their crimes by reason of mental disease or defect. The detailed statutory framework of CPL 330.20 does not include a provision that requires, or even contemplates, the sealing of these commitment and retention proceedings. Nor does the relevant legislative history indicate that the Legislature intended for these proceedings — which arise only after a criminal defendant affirmatively places his or her mental competency in issue — to be sealed from the public … . Matter of James Q., 2017 NY Slip Op 06222, 3rd Dept 8-17-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (INSANITY ACQUITTEE, RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED (THIRD DEPT)/INSANITY ACQUITTEE  (CRIMINAL LAW, RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED (THIRD DEPT))/RETENTION HEARING (INSANITY ACQUITTEE, (CRIMINAL LAW, RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof did not support assessing 15 points for excessive drug and alcohol use. Defendant’s risk level was reduced from three to two. Although the error was not preserved, the court reviewed it in the interest of justice:

“In order to demonstrate that an offender was abusing [drugs or] alcohol at the time of the offense,’ the People must show by clear and convincing evidence that the offender used [drugs or] alcohol in excess either at the time of the crime or repeatedly in the past” … . Here, although the People offered evidence that the defendant used drugs after the time of the offense, the People failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant used alcohol or drugs in excess either at the time of the offense or repeatedly in the past … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have assessed the defendant 15 points under risk factor 11. People v Madison, 2017 NY Slip Op 06200, Second Dept 8-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/SORA (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (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