You are here: / Criminal Law
,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE RE AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROBATION AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING, APPELLATE REVIEW APPROPRIATE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was not given the opportunity to object to the procedure used in finding that he violated probation and did not freely waive his right to a hearing. Preservation of the error was not required for appellate review:

​

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s contention that the County Court erred in finding that he violated the conditions of his probation without holding a hearing is not subject to the preservation requirement … . The transcript of the resentencing proceeding confirms that the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to object to the court’s procedure before the finding of probation violation was made, and the defendant was resentenced immediately thereafter.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the record contains no evidence that the defendant freely admitted to the violation of probation. Nor is there any evidence that the defendant waived his right to a revocation hearing pursuant to CPL 410.70. Rather, the County Court, without conducting any hearing, found “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation. This was error … . People v Montenegro, 2017 NY Slip Op 05973, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROBATION VIOLATION, APPEALS, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE RE AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROBATION AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING, APPELLATE REVIEW APPROPRIATE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/PROBATION VIOLATION (DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE RE AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROBATION AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING, APPELLATE REVIEW APPROPRIATE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROBATION VIOLATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE RE AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROBATION AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING, APPELLATE REVIEW APPROPRIATE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))

,

PURSUANT TO THE INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BELONGINGS AT THE HOSPITAL DID NOT TAINT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH NEAR DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a detailed decision, over a dissent, determined that the illegal search of defendant’s belongings at the hospital did not taint the subsequent search of an area near defendant’s residence (his uncle’s apartment) which turned up a gun. Defendant, although charged with robbery, was convicted only of criminal possession of a weapon. The victim had been robbed by a masked man who fired a gun in the elevator where the robbery took place. Because the police could not find evidence a shot was fired in the elevator they believed the robber may have shot himself. The police found the defendant at a hospital, suffering from a gunshot wound in his leg. Defendant’s belongings were searched at the hospital and items taken in the robbery were seized. The police spoke with the defendant and his girlfriend and eventually searched the apartment where defendant lived with his uncle, with the uncle’s consent. The majority held that the investigation would have continued even if the illegal search at the hospital had not been conducted. The dissent argued the police would have had no reason to continue the investigation without the items found in the illegal search:

​

“[W]here the evidence sought to be suppressed is the product of an independent source entirely free and distinct from proscribed police activity, it should be admissible and not subject to a per se rule of exclusion based solely on the unlawful conduct” … . “[T]he independent source rule is applicable . . . [where] there is no causal connection, direct or indirect, proximate or attenuated, between the illegality and the subsequent seizure. In cases where this causal nexus is lacking, the exclusionary rule simply does not apply” … . A key consideration in determining whether this rule applies is whether “the prosecution has somehow exploited or benefitted from its illegal conduct, [whether] there is a connection between the violation of a constitutional right and the derivative evidence” … .

Here, the challenged searches were attenuated from the illegal search of defendant’s clothing bags. When the detective entered the hospital room, his theory of the crime was that it had been committed by a black male who had a gunshot wound to the leg. Defendant fit that description. Thus, we disagree with the dissent’s statement that, even if the search of the clothing bags turned up no evidence, the police “would have had little cause to pursue the investigation, let alone . . . search defendant’s vehicle and home.” To the contrary, regardless of what the detective were to find in defendant’s possession, he was likely to continue investigating defendant as a possible suspect. Such investigation would have included the routine and natural investigatory step of interviewing defendant and his girlfriend, which is what led him to learn about the car and the apartment. Further, none of the items recovered during the illegal search was used to procure defendant’s uncle’s consent to search the apartment, so the police did not engage in “exploitation of [the] illegality” as charged by the defense. People v Hill, 2017 NY Slip Op 0592, First Dept 8-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, PURSUANT TO THE INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BELONGINGS AT THE HOSPITAL DID NOT TAINT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH NEAR DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PURSUANT TO THE INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BELONGINGS AT THE HOSPITAL DID NOT TAINT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH NEAR DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BELONGINGS AT THE HOSPITAL DID NOT TAINT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH NEAR DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE (CRIMINAL LAW, PURSUANT TO THE INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BELONGINGS AT THE HOSPITAL DID NOT TAINT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH NEAR DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))

,

ADMISSION OF BUSINESS RECORDS WITHOUT THE PROPER FOUNDATION REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a detailed decision describing all the evidence, determined the defendant's attempted murder conviction survived a weight of the evidence analysis, but the admission of documentary evidence was error which required reversal. The victim, Russo, had been shot in the head and could not remember who shot him. Before the grand jury, Russo testified that both the defendant (Bell) and a man named Diaz were in the apartment at the time of the shooting. At trial, however, Russo testified Diaz was not in the apartment. A detective testified Diaz had been interviewed in Florida and provided time sheets on his employer's corporate letterhead indicating he was in Florida at the time of the shooting. Those time sheets were erroneously admitted in evidence without meeting the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

… [W]e find that the court committed reversible error in admitting Diaz's time sheets into evidence. The business records of Diaz's employer were admitted without a proper foundation, and the court failed to clearly instruct the jury that the time sheets could not be considered for the truth of their content. The jury was not told that the time sheets could not be relied upon to conclude that Diaz was not in the apartment at the time of the shootings. The business records exception to the hearsay rule is codified in CPLR 4518(a), and it also applies in criminal cases (CPL 60.10) … . For a business record to be admissible, it must be made in the regular course of business, it must be the regular course of business to make the record, and “the record must have been made at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter, assuring that the recollection is fairly accurate and the entries routinely made” … . Business records are customarily offered through a foundation witness, such as the custodian of the records or an employee who is familiar with the record-keeping procedures of the record maker … . …

The People argue that the time sheets were admitted not for the truth of their content, but only to rebut defense counsel's extensive challenges to the adequacy of the police investigation, and that the court's limiting instruction was adequate. The limiting instruction that the court gave was imprecise and confusing. The court only instructed the jury that the time sheets were “being received in evidence as documents which [Detective Hennessey] says reflect what efforts he did and what information he received on a very particular subject matter . . . .” The court did not clearly instruct the jurors that they were not to consider the time sheets in determining whether Diaz was in the apartment at the time of the shootings. This error was not harmless. There was a substantial disputed issue about whether Diaz was the additional person in the apartment, whom [a co-defendant] identified as the shooter. This conclusion was also supported by Russo's grand jury testimony, even though Russo later repudiated it. The time sheets established an alibi for Diaz, that he was in Florida on October 25, 2007. Bell's defense was that he did not shoot Russo, and someone else in the apartment did the shooting. Allowing the time sheets into evidence was not harmless error because there was “a significant probability . . . that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error” … . People v Bell, 2017 NY Slip Op 05919, First Dept 8-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ADMISSION OF BUSINESS RECORDS WITHOUT THE PROPER FOUNDATION REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, BUSINESS RECORDS, ADMISSION OF BUSINESS RECORDS WITHOUT THE PROPER FOUNDATION REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, BUSINESS RECORDS, ADMISSION OF BUSINESS RECORDS WITHOUT THE PROPER FOUNDATION REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS (CRIMINAL LAW, HEARSAY, ADMISSION OF BUSINESS RECORDS WITHOUT THE PROPER FOUNDATION REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT))

THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THEIR WITNESS’S PLANS TO VACATION OUT OF THE COUNTRY, THE WITNESS’S ABSENCE WAS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE JUSTIFYING AN EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the motion court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment because of a violation of the speedy trial statute should have been granted. The People were aware of a key witness's plan to vacation out of the country. Therefore, the witness's unavailability could not be considered an “exceptional circumstance” justifying the exclusion of time under the speedy trial statute:

… [T]he mere fact that a necessary witness plans to go on a vacation does not relieve them of their speedy trial obligation … .

… The People knew that their cooperative witness was planning a vacation to the Dominican Republic, yet they failed to call him or to otherwise secure his presence before he left the country. The prosecutor admitted that although learning of the witness's proposed vacation plans on July 25, 2013, and being specifically asked by the witness to contact him the next day to discuss the trial schedule and his proposed vacation, no one from the District Attorney's office tried to contact the witness until July 30, 2013, at which time they learned he had already left on vacation. Although the witness indicated a willingness to work with the prosecutor on scheduling his vacation and had not yet bought his ticket to the Dominican Republic, the prosecutor never subpoenaed the witness, sought a material witness order, or even communicated with him prior to his departure. People v Ricart, 2017 NY Slip Op 05922, First Dept 8-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SPEEDY TRIAL, THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THEIR WITNESS'S PLANS TO VACATION OUT OF THE COUNTRY, THE WITNESS'S ABSENCE WAS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE JUSTIFYING AN EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FIRST DEPT))/SPEEDY TRIAL (THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THEIR WITNESS'S PLANS TO VACATION OUT OF THE COUNTRY, THE WITNESS'S ABSENCE WAS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE JUSTIFYING AN EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FIRST DEPT))

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated defendant's guilty plea because, although the court told the defendant he could receive “jail time” if he violated the plea agreement, the defendant was not informed he could be sentenced to state prison:

The court improperly denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The record, viewed as a whole, demonstrates that defendant lacked sufficient information about the potential scope of sentencing in the event he violated the plea agreement … . Although the court clearly told defendant that he was pleading guilty to a class D felony, reckless endangerment in the first degree, its repeated statements, over the course of multiple court appearances, that defendant's sentence would involve “jail” time, and its failure to clearly apprise defendant that he could receive a state prison sentence, and the potential maximum term thereof, if he violated the plea agreement, taken together, rendered his pleas unknowing and involuntary … . People v Renvill, 2017 NY Slip Op 05921, First Dept 8-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT))/PLEA AGREEMENT (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT))

,

EMPLOYER DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT CLAIMANT RECEIVED UNREPORTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF DRUGS, THEREFORE CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined claimant was entitled to resume receiving workers’ compensation benefits when he left prison for offenses related to the sale of drugs. The employer argued claimant should be disqualified because he received benefits while he had unreported income from selling drugs. The Third Department found that the plea allocutions were not sufficient evidence that claimant received income from drug sales:

In support of its assertion that claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1), the employer submitted the transcripts of the 2012 plea allocutions resulting in claimant’s convictions for a violation of probation, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. As a result of recording or transcription errors, the transcript of the Alford plea proceeding is, at times, indecipherable. In addition, both transcripts of the 2012 criminal convictions were insufficient to establish that claimant received income while receiving workers’ compensation benefits or that he otherwise concealed his work status. Further, the employer did not submit the certificate of conviction for claimant’s 2010 convictions or the transcript of that underlying plea allocution. Although we agree with the employer that the Board incorrectly analyzed the 2012 criminal proceedings, we do not find that these inaccuracies warrant reversal and remittal to the Board, given that the Board primarily found that there was insufficient evidence to find a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a … . Matter of Pompeo v Auction Direct USA LP, 2017 NY Slip Op 05910, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, EMPLOYER DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT CLAIMANT RECEIVED UNREPORTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF DRUGS, THEREFORE CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS 3RD DEPT)/CRIMINAL LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, EMPLOYER DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT CLAIMANT RECEIVED UNREPORTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF DRUGS, THEREFORE CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS 3RD DEPT)

DESPITE THE TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL OFFENSES, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, over a strong dissent, determined the denial of youthful offender status was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant lost both parents, dropped out of school after having been a successful student and admitted to college, became addicted to drugs, and was targeted and victimized by persons who moved into his home. He had never before committed a crime. He pled guilty to seven burglaries which took place in the space of two weeks:

Defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying him youthful offender status and that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. “[T]he decision to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound exercise of the sentencing court’s discretion and, absent a clear abuse of that discretion, its decision will not be disturbed” … . Upon our review of the record, we are unpersuaded that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s application for youthful offender status … . In making its determination, County Court considered numerous mitigating circumstances, including, among other things, defendant’s youth, his lack of a criminal record or prior acts of violence, his cooperation with authorities, his familial history and his expressed remorse for his conduct … .. Nevertheless, based upon the seriousness of the charges for which defendant was convicted and the fact that he willingly participated in seven separate and distinct residential burglaries over a two-week period, we perceive no abuse of discretion in County Court’s ultimate decision to deny defendant youthful offender status … . Nor do we find any extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion that would warrant a reduction of his sentence … . People v Strong, 2017 NY Slip Op 05876, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, DESPITE THE TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL OFFENSES, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS 3RD DEPT)/SENTENCING (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, DESPITE THE TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL OFFENSES, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS 3RD DEPT)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (DESPITE THE TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL OFFENSES, COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS 3RD DEPT)

NEITHER THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY NOR THE PLEA ALLOCUTION INDICATED THE TWO SEXUAL OFFENSES OCCURRED AT DIFFERENT TIMES, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT AUTHORIZED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the People did not demonstrate the two sexual offenses to which defendant pled guilty occurred at different times, therefore consecutive sentences should not have been imposed. The Third Department explained that only the accusatory instrument to which defendant pled (here a superior court information) and the plea allocution can be considered in this context.  To the extent that a prior ruling suggested admissions in a pre-sentence report and victim statements could be considered to determine the facts of the offenses, that ruling is no longer to be followed:

Pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (2), “sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively: (1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other” … . Thus, “to determine whether consecutive sentences are permitted, a court must first look to the statutory definitions of the crimes at issue to discern whether the actus reus elements overlap” … . “[E]ven if the statutory elements do overlap under either prong of the statute, the People may yet establish the legality of consecutive sentencing by showing that the acts or omissions committed by [the] defendant were separate and distinct acts” … . * * *

… [B]oth counts in the superior court information alleged that the acts occurred during the same time frame (between July 1, 2012 and July 31, 2012), neither count contained allegations about the specific acts constituting the crime, and there is no bill of particulars narrowing the specific type of sexual contact or sexual conduct alleged under either count … . Likewise, the plea allocution did not include admissions or particularity as to the acts committed that qualify as sexual contact or oral sexual conduct … . Given that the term “sexual contact” is broad enough to include all forms of “oral sexual conduct” … , the actus reus element could be the same for both offenses, that is, the same act could satisfy both crimes. As no specific date and time for each crime were alleged in the superior court information or plea allocution, and neither included underlying facts or alleged acts that were separate and distinct, consecutive sentences were not authorized … . People v Mangarillo, 2017 NY Slip Op 05872, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, NEITHER THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY NOR THE PLEA ALLOCUTION INDICATED THE TWO SEXUAL OFFENSES OCCURRED AT THE SAME TIME, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT AUTHORIZED 3RD DEPT)/SENTENCING (NEITHER THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY NOR THE PLEA ALLOCUTION INDICATED THE TWO SEXUAL OFFENSES OCCURRED AT THE SAME TIME, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT AUTHORIZED 3RD DEPT)

,

RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn, over an extensive, two-justice, dissenting opinion, determined a report on the DNA evidence which connected the defendant to the burglary did not violate the Confrontation Clause and was properly admitted. The majority argued that the report contained only raw data that was not part of a law enforcement effort aimed at the defendant because the sources of the DNA which were analyzed were not known to the technicians conducting the procedures. Therefore the raw data was not testimonial evidence (which would violate the Confrontation Clause). The criminologist (Huyck) who testified came to conclusions (testimonial) about the sources of the tested DNA by comparing the (non-testimonial) raw data. The report generated by the criminologist, therefore, was admissible because she testified and was cross-examined. The dissenters argued that someone involved in collecting the raw data should have testified and been cross-examined about the testing procedures (measures taken to avoid contamination, etc.):

Huyck herself conducted an independent review of the raw data derived from the testing of the DNA material derived from both the physical evidence and from defendant’s person, and was not merely “functioning as a conduit for the conclusions of others” … . …[T]he expert witness, “testified that any conclusions or opinions she reached from the raw data . . . were her own” and were not merely conclusions of others with whom she agreed … . Upon her own examination of the machine-generated graphs and raw data in this case, Huyck concluded that the two DNA profiles were a match. Her conclusion, based upon her own “separate, independent and unbiased analysis of the raw data,” was reflected in the … laboratory report bearing her name as analyst as well as in her own testimony at trial … . … Huyck did not base her testimony “solely on the reports of the nontestifying analysts [which were then] admitted into evidence for their truth.” People v Rodriguez, 2017 NY Slip Op 05799, 1st Dept 7-25-17

CRIMINAL LAW (RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)/TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)/DNA (TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW, RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, CRIMINAL LAW, RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)/DNA (TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, CRIMINAL LAW, RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)/REPORTS (TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, CRIMINAL LAW, RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT)

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT.

The First Department determined defendant, who had pled guilty, was entitled to a hearing on whether the police had probable cause to arrest him. The defendant alleged he was arrested on October 12 at his home. The discovery provided by the People alleged defendant was arrested the following day at the police station. The People did not respond to defendant’s allegation he was arrested at a different time and place. Because the People did not explain the circumstances of defendant’s arrest, defendant’s allegations in the omnibus motion were sufficient to require a hearing. The appeal was held in abeyance pending the hearing:​

… [D]efendant’s claim that he was arrested without probable cause at his home on October 12, 2012, at which time “[h]e was not acting in an illegal or suspicious manner,” although conclusory, was sufficient to entitle him to a hearing on the legality of his arrest and the admissibility of any evidence derived therefrom. It is undisputed that the arrest, whether it occurred on October 12 or (as the People claim) on October 13, took place “at a time and place remote from the [crime] for which [defendant] was charged” … . The People … asserted that defendant was arrested around midday on October 13, at a police station, after giving statements at the same police station that morning and the previous night. Thus, at a minimum, defendant has raised a factual dispute concerning the time of his arrest. Further, the People provided defendant with no information at all as to how, by their account, he came to be at the police station in the first place, nor did they disclose the basis on which he first came to the attention of law enforcement in this investigation … . People v McUllin, 2017 NY Slip Op 05795, 1st Dept 7-25-17​

CRIMINAL LAW (PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT)/PROBABLE CAUSE (ARREST, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT)/SUPPRESSION (PROBABLE CAUSE , BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT)/HEARINGS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROBABLE CAUSE, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST 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