You are here: / Criminal Law
,

IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined detaining defendant while the police, after taking the defendant’s ID, checked to see if defendant’s girlfriend lived in an apartment, was not a seizure. Defendant had been seen (by the police) making quick trips in and out of an apartment complex. To determine if defendant was trespassing, the police went to the apartment where defendant said his girlfriend lived. The occupant of the apartment was shown defendant’s ID and denied knowing him. The police then had probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass:

This Court has repeatedly held that in a trespass situation, a police officer may conduct a brief investigation to ascertain whether a defendant’s explanation was credible, and this does not rise to a level three forcible detention or seizure … .

In determining the lawfulness of police encounters, New York has long followed the four-level test illustrated in People v De Bour (40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). To determine a seizure under De Bour, “[t]he test is whether a reasonable person would have believed, under the circumstances, that the officer’s conduct was a significant limitation on his or her freedom” …. The dissent cannot point to any New York State case applying the De Bour standard to support the broad proposition that a seizure occurs whenever an officer retains a person’s identification. Although the dissent cites to several federal and out-of-state cases, those cases present different factual scenarios compared to the circumstances here, and are not controlling. People v Hill,  2017 NY Slip Op 04236, 1st Dept 5-30-17

CRIMINAL LAW (IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE)/TRESPASS (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOP, (IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE)/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEIZURE, IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE)/SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, (IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE)

, ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The First Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to set aside her conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant alleged she was told by her attorney (erroneously) that a guilty plea would not result in deportation:

​

Defendant said in an affidavit that she informed her plea counsel that she was not a U.S. citizen but was a legal permanent resident and was concerned about maintaining her immigration status and not being deported. Counsel advised her that, if she pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree conspiracy, she would receive five years of probation, with no jail time, and assured her that, by taking the plea and receiving probation, she would not have to fear any deportation proceedings. Defendant, age 26 at the time, had been in jail since her arrest, and wanted to be released as soon as possible, so that she could rejoin her two young children.

Accordingly, defendant pleaded guilty, was sentenced as indicated, and successfully completed her probation.

However, in 2012, defendant was referred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and on June 5, 2012, ICE issued her a Notice to Appear. Defendant said that she learned that conspiracy is considered an “aggravated felony” under the immigration law, which leaves her exposed to deportation proceedings, except under limited and difficult-to-meet exceptions under the Convention Against Torture. …

Defendant said that, if she had known that her guilty plea would subject her to a risk of deportation, she “never would have entered a guilty plea,” but instead “would have contested the matter, tried to negotiate a better plea or taken the case to trial.” She said that she believed that she “would have had a good defense as [she]was not involved in any drug activity, did not know that [her] stepfather was involved in drugs and never saw any drugs … .”

Defendant submitted an affidavit by her plea counsel, who said that she no longer possessed a copy of defendant’s file, and the plea transcript was not available. Nonetheless, counsel said she recalled speaking to defendant a few times, with her secretary acting as interpreter. Counsel recalled that defendant was a legal resident and not a U.S. citizen, but “[did] not recall any advice [she] may have given to [defendant] concerning the plea she eventually entered and the ramifications of that plea upon her status in the United States.”

Counsel explained that her difficulty remembering was due not only to the passage of 15 years, but also to the fact that, at the time of the plea, she was going through “personal difficulties,” including “alcoholism and addiction.” In May 2000, counsel was indicted in Supreme Court, Ulster County, for first-degree promoting prison contraband, seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, and second-degree harassment.

Under these circumstances, a hearing should be held on whether counsel’s performance rose to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel… . People v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 04200, 1st Dept 5-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION, MOTION TO, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/SET ASIDE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA SATISFIED AN UNCHARGED BURGLARY, THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION FOR THE UNCHARGED BURGLARY.

The Third Department determined the sentencing court erred when it ordered restitution for an uncharged burglary (on December 18). Although defendant’s guilty plea was taken in satisfaction of the uncharged December 18 burglary, that burglary was never included in an accusatory instrument and was not shown to be part of the same criminal transaction to which defendant pled:

​

Pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27, a trial court may order restitution arising from “the offense for which a defendant was convicted, as well as any other offense that is part of the same criminal transaction or that is contained in any other accusatory instrument disposed of by any plea of guilty by the defendant to an offense” (Penal Law § 60.27 [4] [a]). Defendant’s guilty plea pertained to the December 24, 2014 burglary of the warehouse, and satisfied uncharged burglaries from that warehouse on December 15 and 18, 2014. … After a hearing, County Court determined that there was insufficient evidence that defendant had committed the December 15 burglary but ordered restitution in the amount of $11,471 for the materials stolen in the December 18 burglary.

However, no proof was adduced at the hearing that the December 18 burglary was ever charged in an accusatory instrument and the People did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that this burglary was part of “the same criminal transaction” as the December 24 crime of conviction … . To be part of the same criminal transaction, the conduct must be “either (a) so closely related and connected in point of time and circumstance of commission as to constitute a single criminal incident, or (b) so closely related in criminal purpose or objective as to constitute elements or integral parts of a single criminal venture” … . Here, the evidence established that there were three separate burglaries, each committed days apart in which distinct materials were stolen, and each was completed when the perpetrator left the premises with the stolen materials … . As such, the evidence established that the burglaries were separate “criminal transaction[s]” and did not demonstrate that they were “integral parts of a single criminal venture”” (CPL 40.10 [2] [a], [b]), as there was no proof that they “involve[d] planned, ongoing organized criminal activity, such as conspiracies, complex frauds or larcenies, or narcotics rings” … . Accordingly, Penal Law § 60.20 (4) (a) did not authorize restitution for the December 18 burglary, and the restitution order must be vacated … . People v Pixley, 2017 NY Slip Op 04173, 3rd Dept 5-25-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA SATISFIED AN UNCHARGED BURGLARY, THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION FOR THE UNCHARGED BURGLARY)/RESTITUTION (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA SATISFIED AN UNCHARGED BURGLARY, THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION FOR THE UNCHARGED BURGLARY)

,

SECOND RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD.

The Second Department determined the second risk assessment hearing should not have been held. Defendant had pled guilty to offenses in two counties and was given concurrent sentences. Using the same risk assessment instrument (RAI) one court (New York County) assessed defendant at level two and the second court (Rockland County) subsequently assessed defendant at level three. The Rockland County proceeding was dismissed:

​

… [T]he result reached by the County Court in the Rockland County SORA proceeding conflicted with the result reached by the Supreme Court in the New York County SORA proceeding even though the same RAI was utilized in both proceedings. Recently, the Court of Appeals instructed that in order to prevent conflicting conclusions based upon the same RAI, “one—and only one—sentencing court should render a risk level determination based on all conduct contained in the RAI” … . Accordingly, the Rockland County SORA proceeding must be dismissed … . People v Katz, 2017 NY Slip Op 04154, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SECOND RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD)

,

SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Sexual Assault Reform Act (Executive Law 258-c) (hereinafter SARA), as applied to the petitioner, was not shown to be so punitive in nature as to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Petitioner was convicted of a sex offense committed in 2000, before SARA was enacted. Upon release petitioner was deemed a Level One sex offender. SARA prohibits petitioner from living within 1000 feet of a school. In seeking a declaratory judgment/writ of prohibition finding SARA unconstitutional, petitioner argued the law virtually prohibits him from living and travelling in Brooklyn, where he had resided with his girlfriend:

​

The issue of whether it is permissible to retroactively apply SARA, which became effective on February 1, 2001, after the petitioner had committed the underlying sex offense, turns upon whether such application would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution, which provides that “[n]o State shall . . . pass any . . . ex post facto Law” … . The constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws applies to “penal statutes which disadvantage the offender affected by them” … . “A statute will be considered an ex post facto law if it punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done,’ makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission,’ or deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed'”… . In contrast, a statute that is enacted for nonpunitive purposes, and is not so punitive in effect as to negate that nonpunitive intent, may be retroactively applied without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause … . * * *

​

The legislative history of SARA as originally enacted in 2000, as well as that of its 2005 amendment, make clear that it was intended to provide protection to children from the risk of recidivism by certain convicted sex offenders, rather than to punish such offenders for a past crime… . Indeed, the Court of Appeals, in analyzing the issue of whether the State has preempted the field of managing registered sex offenders, has stressed that SARA was part of “a detailed and comprehensive regulatory scheme involving the State’s ongoing monitoring, management and treatment of registered sex offenders, which . . . does not end when the sex offender is released from prison” … . Moreover, the petitioner has not shown by the “clearest proof” that the residency and travel restrictions imposed by SARA, as applied to him, are so punitive in their consequences as to transform the restrictions into punishment … . Accordingly, the retroactive application of SARA does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause as applied to the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate “a clear legal right” to prohibition on that ground … , the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the petition/complaint. Matter of Devine v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 04114, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (EX POST FACTO CLAUSE, SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/SEX OFFENDERS (SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA) SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)

,

ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF A SUPPRESSED STATEMENT, THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE.

The First Department determined evidence discovered as a result of defendant’s suppressed statement was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine:

​

The court properly denied the motion to suppress drugs recovered from defendant’s person. While the record demonstrates that they were discovered as the result of a statement that was suppressed, they were nevertheless admissible pursuant to the doctrine of inevitable discovery. Because defendant would have been subjected to several thorough searches following his arrest, there was a “very high degree of probability” that “normal police procedures” would inevitably have led to the discovery of the drugs, even without the statement … . In light of this determination …  “we find it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether, given United States Supreme Court authority to the contrary (see United States v Patane, 542 US 630 [2004]), physical evidence may be suppressed as fruit of a Miranda violation.” People v Jaquez, 2017 NY Slip Op 04050, 1st Dept 5-18-17

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF A SUPPRESSED STATEMENT, THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF A SUPPRESSED STATEMENT, THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE)/INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE (ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF A SUPPRESSED STATEMENT, THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE)

, ,

TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL.

The First Department, over a concurrence, determined defendant was entitled to a new trial for two reasons: (1) the defendant should have been provided with Rosario material which tended to show the police may have confused defendant with another person arrested at the same time; and (2) the trial judge committed a mode of proceedings error by communicating with the jury off the record and outside the presence of defendant and counsel. The concurrence argued the judge did not commit a mode of proceedings error:

​

Supreme Court improperly limited both defense counsel’s discovery of Rosario material and his ability to cross-examine the police witnesses at trial. The Rosario material in question consisted of police documentation of the arrest of a third party. Supreme Court denied defendant’s discovery request, rejecting his trial counsel’s argument that defendant and the third party, both Hispanic males, had been contemporaneously arrested and separately charged with selling drugs to the same undercover officer at approximately the same time and location. In the absence of Supreme Court’s discovery limitations, defense counsel might have reasonably established a motive to fabricate the evidence due to police confusion between defendant and the third party … . Furthermore, as we have stated, where there is evidence raising the possibility of a “police motive to fabricate,” cross-examination of police witnesses is “highly relevant” … . Thus, Supreme Court’s errors deprived defendant of his right to present a defense … . As there was “a reasonable possibility that the non-disclosure materially contributed to the result of the trial” … , Supreme Court’s errors were not “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” … .

​

Were we not reversing on the basis of error regarding the Rosario material and the related cross-examination, we would reverse on another ground — namely, Supreme Court’s communication with the jury off the record and outside the presence of defendant and his counsel.After the jurors had been deliberating for four days, they sent a note to the court stating they were deadlocked on the third count of the indictment and asking for guidance. The court discharged the jury for the day in contemplation of taking further actions, possibly including the delivery of an Allen charge, in the morning. The next morning, in defendant’s and his counsel’s absence, the court instructed the jury, off the record, to resume deliberations. The same afternoon, the court informed defendant and his counsel of this instruction, and counsel did not object. People v Farez, 2017 NY Slip Op 04041, 1st Dept 5-18-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ROSARIO MATERIAL, TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL)/ROSARIO MATERIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL)/JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, ROSARIO MATERIAL, TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL)/MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL)

,

FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED ALL HIS CHILDREN BASED SOLELY ON HIS GUILTY PLEA TO ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined, in the absence of a fact-finding proceeding, father should not have been deemed to have derivatively neglected his children based solely upon his guilty plea to endangering the welfare of one of his children:

​

“A criminal conviction may be given collateral estoppel effect in a Family Court proceeding where (1) the identical issue has been resolved, and (2) the defendant in the criminal action had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of his or her criminal conduct” … . Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i) defines a neglected child as one “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his parent or other person legally responsible for his care to exercise a minimum degree of care” … by, inter alia, “unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or a substantial risk thereof.” Here, since the father’s conviction for endangering the welfare of a child was based upon the same acts alleged to constitute neglect, the father’s conviction established, prima facie, that Blima M. was a neglected child … . …

However, the Family Court erred in granting that branch of ACS’s [Administration for Children’s Services’] motion which was for summary judgment determining that the father derivatively neglected Hersh M., Jacob M., Aron M., Moshe M., and Dina M. While proof of the neglect of one child shall be admissible evidence on the issue of the neglect of any other child of, or the legal responsibility of, the respondent … , a finding of abuse or neglect as to one sibling does not mandate a finding of derivative abuse or neglect as to the other siblings … . Matter of Blima M. (Samuel M.), 2017 NY Slip Op 03954, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED ALL HIS CHILDREN BASED SOLELY ON HIS GUILTY PLEA TO ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN)/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED ALL HIS CHILDREN BASED SOLELY ON HIS GUILTY PLEA TO ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN)/DERIVATIVE NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED ALL HIS CHILDREN BASED SOLELY ON HIS GUILTY PLEA TO ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN)/CRIMINAL LAW (ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, FAMILY LAW, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED ALL HIS CHILDREN BASED SOLELY ON HIS GUILTY PLEA TO ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN)

TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER.

The Third Department determined the prosecutor should not have elicited testimony from an investigator about defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. The error was deemed harmless however:

​

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in permitting the People to elicit testimony about defendant’s invocation of his right to silence and to comment on that testimony in summation. “[I]t is axiomatic that when a defendant invokes his or her constitutional right against self-incrimination, the People may not use his or her silence against him or her on their direct case”… . The principle applies when a defendant unequivocally states his or her desire to halt all questioning, even if he or she has previously responded to other questions … . A State Police investigator testified at trial that he interviewed defendant after his arrest and read him his Miranda rights, which defendant stated that he understood. Defendant then willingly answered a series of questions about various topics. However, when asked if he had punched or pushed the trooper, defendant responded that “he didn’t want to say any more.” During summation, the prosecutor remarked upon this testimony, noting that when defendant was asked about striking the trooper, he had not denied that he had done so or offered an explanation, but instead had stated that he did not want to say anything else. Defendant’s counsel objected twice to these remarks, but was overruled. Contrary to the People’s assertion, defendant’s statement that he did not want to say any more was an “unequivocal and unqualified invocation of [the] right” to remain silent … . People v Johnson, 2017 NY Slip Op 03804, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

CRIMINAL LAW (TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER)/SELF-INCRIMINATION, RIGHT TO AVOID (TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER)

,

ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY AN INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AS PART OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CAN BE APPEALED BUT NOT MODIFIED BY MOTION, HERE THE CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION COULD NOT BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT CHILD NEGLECT PROCEEDING ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY THE SAME COURT.

The Second Department determined father could not move to modify an order of protection issued by the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) court in connection with a criminal conviction. The order of protection could be appealed as part of an appeal of the conviction, but the Criminal Procedure Law does not provide for modification of the order. In addition, an order of protection issued by the same court in related child neglect proceedings could not change the terms of the “criminal” order of protection unless that order indicated is was subject to subsequent orders of protection (which was not the case here):

​

“[W]here a criminal court order of protection bars contact between a parent and child, the parent may not obtain visitation until the order of protection is vacated or modified by the criminal court”… . The criminal court has authority to determine whether its order of protection is “subject to” subsequent orders pertaining to custody and visitation, and can decline to amend an order of protection to so provide … . Here, the order of protection … that was entered in the criminal action did not state that it was “subject to” subsequent orders pertaining to custody and visitation. Matter of Utter v Usher, 2017 NY Slip Op 03760, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

FAMILY LAW (ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY AN INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AS PART OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CAN BE APPEALED BUT NOT MODIFIED BY MOTION, HERE THE CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION COULD NOT BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT NON-CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION)/CRIMINAL LAW (ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY AN INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AS PART OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CAN BE APPEALED BUT NOT MODIFIED BY MOTION, HERE THE CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION COULD NOT BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT NON-CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION)/ORDERS OF PROTECTION (INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT, ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY AN INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AS PART OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CAN BE APPEALED BUT NOT MODIFIED BY MOTION, HERE THE CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION COULD NOT BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT NON-CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION)/INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT (ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY AN INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT AS PART OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CAN BE APPEALED BUT NOT MODIFIED BY MOTION, HERE THE CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION COULD NOT BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT NON-CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION)

​

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