You are here: / Criminal Law
,

ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY PRESERVED THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that, although testimony by a detective about a phone conversation with defendant’s wife (who had since recanted and avoided testifying) violated defendant’s right to confront witnesses, the diluted strength of the phone-call evidence coupled with the striking of the detective’s testimony preserved the fairness of the trial. Defendant’s wife was a witness to the stabbing of the victim. The victim knew the defendant and identified him as the attacker. Defendant’s wife first told the police defendant was the attacker but later recanted and she could not be found at the time of trial. The detective’s testimony did not identify the wife as the person he talked to on the phone but the jury could have inferred it was she and that she identified the defendant as the attacker. However, since the detective had also talked to the victim, the jury could also have inferred it was the victim’s statement that led the detective to the defendant:

Here, the detective did not expressly state that the wife was a witness and that she had identified defendant as the attacker. While the testimony supported an inference to that effect, there was another countervailing inference —— as discussed above, the detective may have identified defendant as a suspect based on information provided by the victim to the police at the hospital and passed on to the detective once he took the case, but before the detective spoke to the wife. This inference also flowed logically from the victim’s testimony that the wife was with the victim when he was attacked by defendant, particularly because the jury heard this testimony immediately before the detective testified. As such, the jury could reasonably infer that the police knew about the wife from the victim and that his statements, relayed to the detective during the briefing from the Night Watch Unit, led the police to treat defendant as a suspect. Given this context, the testimony was neither powerfully incriminating nor, as the defendant argues, did it alone transform the entire case from that in which the People presented a single eyewitness to a case with two eyewitnesses identifying defendant as the perpetrator. People v Stone, 2017 NY Slip Op 03559, CtApp 5-4-17

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY PRESERVED THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY PRESERVED THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY PRESERVED THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL)/CONFRONTATION, RIGHT OF (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY PRESERVED THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL)

,

WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the warrantless search of a parolee’s empty car and seizure of a firearm by police officers was lawful. Defendant parolee argued only a parole officer, not a police officer, could conduct a lawful search. The Court of Appeals held that a parolee’s reduced expectation of privacy applied irrespective of whether a parole or police officer conducted the search:

In Huntley [43 NY2d 175, 181 …] we distinguished between parole officers and police officers, noting that searches that may be reasonably justified if undertaken by a parole officer are not necessarily constitutional if undertaken by a police officer … . Nevertheless, we concomitantly observed that, “in any evaluation of the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure,” whether undertaken by parole or police officers, “the fact of defendant’s status as a parolee is always relevant and may be critical” … .

On the facts presented here, Huntley does not compel the conclusion that the search was unconstitutional … . The detectives had a high degree of individualized suspicion based on a tip from a known individual — who correctly identified defendant’s vehicle and its location — indicating that defendant had a firearm in his vehicle, the recent arrival of which was corroborated by the absence of the vehicle during the detectives’ earlier visit and the warmth of the hood. In light of this tip, taken together with defendant’s reduced expectation of privacy, there is support in the record for the conclusion that the search of defendant’s vehicle was lawful and reasonable … . People v McMillan, 2017 NY Slip Op 03446, CtApp 5-2-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, (WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER)/PAROLEES (REDUCED EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER)

,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE’S CASE TO PROVE INTENT.

The Court of appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined that even though defendant relied solely on the prosecution's evidence to raise the agency defense to the charged drug sale, Molineux evidence of defendant's prior conviction for a drug sale was admissible in the People's direct case to prove intent:

… [D]efendant plainly raised the issue of his intent and particular role in the drug sale as a salesman based on his arguments to the jury at trial, his cross-examination of the People's witnesses, and his specific request for an agency charge to the jury. The trial court then conducted the proper balancing analysis, determining that it would permit introduction of only one of defendant's prior convictions. Under these circumstances, the People were properly permitted by the trial court to use the admissible evidence of defendant's prior drug sale conviction on the issue of intent in their case-in-chief … . People v Valentin, 2017 NY Slip Op 03444, CtApp 5-2-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE'S CASE TO PROVE INTENT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE'S CASE TO PROVE INTENT)/AGENCY DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE'S CASE TO PROVE INTENT)/MOLINEUX EVIDENCE (EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE'S CASE TO PROVE INTENT)

JUDGE’S FIRST AGREEING WITH PROSECUTION’S REQUEST NOT TO CHARGE THE JURY WITH CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AND THEN GIVING THE CHARGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant's conviction, in a very brief memorandum, determined the trial judge's decision not to charge the jury with constructive possession and then giving the charge was not harmless error:

Although we reject defendant's contention that the evidence presented at trial did not support a charge of constructive possession, we nevertheless conclude that defendant is entitled to a new trial. The trial court erred in that it agreed to the People's request at the charge conference not to charge the jury on constructive possession, but then ultimately provided a constructive possession charge to the jury, resulting in prejudice to defendant … . People v Smalling, 2017 NY Slip Op 03442, CtApp 5-2-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE'S FIRST AGREEING WITH PROSECUTION'S REQUEST NOT TO CHARGE THE JURY WITH CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AND THEN GIVING THE CHARGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE'S FIRST AGREEING WITH PROSECUTION'S REQUEST NOT TO CHARGE THE JURY WITH CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AND THEN GIVING THE CHARGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/JURY INSTRUCTION (CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE'S FIRST AGREEING WITH PROSECUTION'S REQUEST NOT TO CHARGE THE JURY WITH CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AND THEN GIVING THE CHARGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)

, ,

CHANGE OF VENUE TO ALLOW PETITIONER’S MOTHER TO TESTIFY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner sex offender’s motion for a change of venue for the annual review of his civil commitment under Article 10 should have been granted. The change was sought to allow petitioner’s mother to testify:

​

In this annual review proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09, petitioner appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied that part of his motion seeking a change of venue to New York County for the convenience of witnesses … . Petitioner was previously determined to be a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement and confined to a secure treatment facility … . He is currently confined at the Central New York Psychiatric Center in Oneida County. We now grant that part of the motion seeking a change of venue.

The court may change the venue of an annual review proceeding” to any county for good cause, which may include considerations relating to the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the condition of the [confined sex offender]’ ” … . We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying his motion inasmuch as the proposed testimony of his mother, who lives in New York County, is “relevant to the issue of whether petitioner remained a dangerous sex offender in need of confinement” … . Although respondent correctly notes that the subjects of the mother’s proposed testimony also may be the subjects of expert testimony, “[t]he pertinent question is whether a witness—expert or lay—has material and relevant evidence to offer on the issues to be resolved” … . We agree with petitioner that his mother’s proposed testimony concerning his stated goals and priorities, likely living arrangements, and the availability and extent of a familial support system in the event of release, is material and relevant to the issue whether he “is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” … . Matter of Charada T. v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 03379, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, CHANGE OF VENUE TO ALLOW PETITIONER’S MOTHER TO TESTIFY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CHANGE OF VENUE TO ALLOW PETITIONER’S MOTHER TO TESTIFY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL COMMITMENT (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CHANGE OF VENUE TO ALLOW PETITIONER’S MOTHER TO TESTIFY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/VENUE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CHANGE OF VENUE TO ALLOW PETITIONER’S MOTHER TO TESTIFY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication should not have been used to calculate his risk level under risk factor 9:

​

Defendant was assessed 15 points under risk factor 9 for a prior crime as a juvenile delinquent, and the court, relying on People v Catchings (56 AD3d 1181 … , rejected defendant’s challenge to the assessment of points under risk factor 9. As we recently held in People v Brown (148 AD3d 1705, ___), however, a juvenile delinquency adjudication may not be considered a crime for purposes of assessing points in a SORA determination, and Catchings should no longer be followed to that extent. Consequently, we conclude that the court erred in considering defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication in assessing 15 points under risk factor 9.

Removing the improperly assessed points under risk factor 9 renders defendant a presumptive level two risk. Under the circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings to determine whether an upward departure is warranted … . People v Gibson, 2017 NY Slip Op 03355, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA)  (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION (SORA, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9)

, ,

JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE.

The Fourth Department, in an original Article 78 proceeding, determined the judge was prohibited from imposing on defendant a sentence of probation. Defendant was sentenced to 30 days in jail. Outside the defendant’s presence the sentencing judge signed an order imposing a five-year probationary period and defendant agreed to the order by signing it in jail:

​

While a court possesses the inherent authority to correct a mistake or error in a criminal defendant’s sentence … , the process by which a court corrects such an error is by resentencing the defendant … , which must be done in the defendant’s presence (see CPL 380.40 [1]). We thus conclude that the Judge erred in imposing an additional component to the sentence outside of petitioner’s presence …

We further conclude that petitioner cannot now be resentenced. It is well settled that, “where a defendant is released from custody and returns to the community after serving the period of incarceration that was ordered by the sentencing court, and the time to appeal the sentence has expired or the appeal has been finally determined,’ a legitimate expectation of the original sentence’s finality arises and double jeopardy precludes the modification of that sentence to include a period of” probation … . Here, ,,, petitioner has completed serving the period of incarceration and has been released from custody. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal, and the time within which to do so has expired … . Although petitioner, as of this writing, could still move for an extension of time to take an appeal … , he cannot be forced to do so. We thus conclude that petitioner’s sentence is “beyond the court’s authority,” and an additional component to that sentence cannot be imposed … . Matter of Brandon v Doran, 2017 NY Slip Op 03371, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78, PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/JUDGES (ARTICLE 78, PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/SENTENCING (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)

, ,

HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HEARSAY EVIDENCE A THIRD PARTY CONFESSED TO THE MURDER MUST BE ASSESSED AND WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE THIRD PARTY CONFESSION MUST BE DETERMINED.

The Fourth Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction. There was hearsay evidence that a third party committed the murder and a hearing was necessary to determine the reliability of the hearsay. In addition, a hearing was required to determine whether defense counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate evidence that a third party committed the murder:

​

Here, … information was received following defendant’s conviction that a third party had allegedly confessed to the murder, and there are questions of fact whether the statements of that third party would have been admissible at trial as declarations against penal interest … . Moreover, … “where, as here, the declarations exculpate the defendant, they are subject to a more lenient standard, and will be found sufficient if [the supportive evidence] establish[es] a reasonable possibility that the statement might be true . . . That is because [d]epriving a defendant of the opportunity to offer into evidence [at trial] another person’s admission to the crime with which he or she has been charged, even though that admission may . . . be offered [only] as a hearsay statement, may deny a defendant his or her fundamental right to present a defense” … . We thus conclude that the court should have conducted a hearing to determine, first, whether there is “competent evidence independent of the declaration to assure its trustworthiness and reliability” … and, second, whether the witness who heard the third party’s declaration is both available to testify and credible in his or her testimony … .

We further conclude that defendant is entitled to a hearing on his claims that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate potentially exculpatory information. Before trial, a witness informed police that two identified individuals had told the witness that the third party had committed the murder. “A defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel includes defense counsel’s reasonable investigation and preparation of defense witnesses . . . Consequently, the failure to investigate witnesses may amount to ineffective assistance of counsel” … . People v Davis, 2017 NY Slip Op 03375, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HEARSAY EVIDENCE A THIRD PARTY CONFESSED TO THE MURDER MUST BE ASSESSED AND WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE THIRD PARTY CONFESSION MUST BE DETERMINED)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HEARSAY EVIDENCE A THIRD PARTY CONFESSED TO THE MURDER MUST BE ASSESSED AND WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE THIRD PARTY CONFESSION MUST BE DETERMINED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, (HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HEARSAY EVIDENCE A THIRD PARTY CONFESSED TO THE MURDER MUST BE ASSESSED AND WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE THIRD PARTY CONFESSION MUST BE DETERMINED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HEARSAY EVIDENCE A THIRD PARTY CONFESSED TO THE MURDER MUST BE ASSESSED AND WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE THIRD PARTY CONFESSION MUST BE DETERMINED)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HEARSAY EVIDENCE A THIRD PARTY CONFESSED TO THE MURDER MUST BE ASSESSED AND WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE THIRD PARTY CONFESSION MUST BE DETERMINED)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, (HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HEARSAY EVIDENCE A THIRD PARTY CONFESSED TO THE MURDER MUST BE ASSESSED AND WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE THIRD PARTY CONFESSION MUST BE DETERMINED)/THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY (CRIMINAL LAW, HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HEARSAY EVIDENCE A THIRD PARTY CONFESSED TO THE MURDER MUST BE ASSESSED AND WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE THIRD PARTY CONFESSION MUST BE DETERMINED)

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAIVED BRUTON OBJECTION TO CODEFENDANT’S STATEMENT IMPLICATING DEFENDANT, WAIVER OF BRUTON OBJECTION AND STRATEGIC DECISION NOT TO SEVER DEFENDANT’S TRIAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Fourth Department, over a two justice dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence. The dissenters argued the sentence for this adolescent offender was harsh and excessive. The defense attorney allowed in evidence without objection statements made by a codefendant which implicated defendant, in violation of the Bruton rule. In addition, defense counsel did not move for a severance. The Fourth Department determined the waiver of the Bruton objection and defense counsel’s decision not to move to sever defendant’s trial were strategic decisions and did not constitute ineffective assistance:

​

While we agree with defendant that the admission of those statements violated Bruton and that Supreme Court’s curative instruction did not alleviate the prejudice … , we consider defense counsel’s strategic decisions to proceed with a joint trial and to consent to the admission of the codefendant’s statements to constitute a waiver of any Bruton violation … . Indeed, when the codefendant’s statements were offered in evidence, defense counsel specifically stated that he had “[n]o objection” to their admission in evidence. * * *

​

It is well settled that “a reviewing court must avoid confusing true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics’ ” … . Indeed, it “is not for [the] court to second-guess whether a course chosen by defendant’s counsel was the best trial strategy, or even a good one, so long as defendant was afforded meaningful representation” … . “To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it is incumbent on defendant to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for defense counsel’s allegedly deficient conduct … . Here, defense counsel specifically stated on the record that he made a decision for strategic reasons, and we conclude that defendant has not established that counsel’s strategy “was inconsistent with the actions of a reasonably competent attorney” … . People v Howie, 2017 NY Slip Op 03298, 4th Dept 4-28-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL WAIVED BRUTON OBJECTION TO CODEFENDANT’S STATEMENT IMPLICATING DEFENDANT, WAIVER OF BRUTON OBJECTION AND STRATEGIC DECISION NOT TO SEVER DEFENDANT’S TRIAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAIVED BRUTON OBJECTION TO CODEFENDANT’S STATEMENT IMPLICATING DEFENDANT, WAIVER OF BRUTON OBJECTION AND STRATEGIC DECISION NOT TO SEVER DEFENDANT’S TRIAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAIVED BRUTON OBJECTION TO CODEFENDANT’S STATEMENT IMPLICATING DEFENDANT, WAIVER OF BRUTON OBJECTION AND STRATEGIC DECISION NOT TO SEVER DEFENDANT’S TRIAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/BRUTON RULE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAIVED BRUTON OBJECTION TO CODEFENDANT’S STATEMENT IMPLICATING DEFENDANT, WAIVER OF BRUTON OBJECTION AND STRATEGIC DECISION NOT TO SEVER DEFENDANT’S TRIAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEFENSE COUNSEL WAIVED BRUTON OBJECTION TO CODEFENDANT’S STATEMENT IMPLICATING DEFENDANT, WAIVER OF BRUTON OBJECTION AND STRATEGIC DECISION NOT TO SEVER DEFENDANT’S TRIAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/SEVERANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAIVED BRUTON OBJECTION TO CODEFENDANT’S STATEMENT IMPLICATING DEFENDANT, WAIVER OF BRUTON OBJECTION AND STRATEGIC DECISION NOT TO SEVER DEFENDANT’S TRIAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)

DESCRIPTION OF CLOTHES WORN BY THE SUSPECT DID NOT MATCH THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE MAN OBSERVED BY THE POLICE, THE STOP OF THE CAR THE MAN GOT INTO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, SEIZED WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the stop of defendant’s car was not supported by reasonable suspicion and the weapons seized should have been suppressed. The officer stopped the car after he saw an Hispanic man with tattoos on his neck get into the car. The shooting suspect the police were looking for at the time of the stop was an Hispanic man with tattoos on his neck. However, the clothing worn by the man who got into the car did not come close to matching the clothes the shooting suspect was said to be wearing. It turned out that the shooting suspect was also in the stopped car:

​

… [T]he inconsistencies between the suspect’s clothing as described by the complainant and the clothing worn by the man who walked past the officer on North Goodman Street rendered the officer’s suspicion that the man was the suspect less than reasonable… . Contrary to the People’s contention, moreover, we conclude that the man’s conduct in staring straight ahead as he walked among the police cars was “innocuous and readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation” and, as such, did not generate a reasonable suspicion of criminality … .

Given that the stop of defendant’s vehicle was not supported by a reasonable suspicion of criminality, the officer’s observation of the actual suspect in the front seat with a weapon in his waistband was “the unattenuated by-product of the [illegal] stop” …  and, inasmuch as the disposal of the weapons during the ensuing chase was precipitated by that illegality, the weapons should have been suppressed … . In addition, because our determination results in the suppression of all evidence supporting the crimes charged, the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Lopez, 2017 NY Slip Op 03327, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DESCRIPTION OF CLOTHES WORN BY THE SUSPECT DID NOT MATCH THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE MAN OBSERVED BY THE POLICE, THE STOP OF THE CAR THE MAN GOT INTO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, SEIZED WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/STREET STOPS  (DESCRIPTION OF CLOTHES WORN BY THE SUSPECT DID NOT MATCH THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE MAN OBSERVED BY THE POLICE, THE STOP OF THE CAR THE MAN GOT INTO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, SEIZED WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (DESCRIPTION OF CLOTHES WORN BY THE SUSPECT DID NOT MATCH THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE MAN OBSERVED BY THE POLICE, THE STOP OF THE CAR THE MAN GOT INTO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, SEIZED WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

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