You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel was properly granted. The hearing demonstrated defendant could have pled to an offense that would not result in mandatory deportation:

… [D]efendant established that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to attempt to negotiate a plea to a crime that would not have constituted an aggravated felony under federal law, and therefore would not have subjected him to mandatory deportation. The record establishes that the People were willing to accept a plea to a crime pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(12) that would not have subjected the defendant to mandatory deportation and that defense counsel did not make such a request because he was not aware that a plea pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(12) would not have subjected the defendant to mandatory deportation … . Moreover, defense counsel testified at a hearing on the motion to vacate the judgment of conviction that, had he known that a plea pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(1) would have subjected the defendant to mandatory deportation, he would have attempted to negotiate a plea under Penal Law § 220.16(12) and would have advised the defendant not to take the plea that he ultimately took. This evidence supports the court’s finding that the defendant was not afforded meaningful representation as guaranteed by the New York Constitution …

Further, in light of the People’s admission that they would have been amenable to such a plea had defense counsel raised the issue, the defendant established that he was prejudiced by defense counsel’s conduct in failing to attempt to negotiate a plea that would not have subjected the defendant to mandatory deportation … . In addition, since the People refused at the time of the hearing on the motion to consent to vacate the defendant’s conviction so as to have the case restored to the calendar to allow the defendant to plead pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(12), this further establishes that defense counsel’s failure to attempt to negotiate a plea pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(12) at a time when the People were amenable to such a plea prejudiced the defendant and affected the “fairness of the process as a whole” … . People v Guzman, 2017 NY Slip Op 04291, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)

,

THE ABSENCE FROM THE JURY CHARGE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE (ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT) REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

The First Department reversed defendant’s attempted robbery conviction, despite the lack of preservation of the error, because the jury charge did not make it clear that defendant must possess a dangerous instrument. The store clerk testified defendant had a knife and threatened him with it. However the exchange where the knife was allegedly brandished was not captured on the imperfect video and no knife was subsequently found by the police:

Defendant does not dispute that he failed to preserve his objection to the jury charge on attempted robbery. Accordingly, he asks us to exercise our interests-of-justice jurisdiction to reach the issue. There is precedent for exercising such jurisdiction in cases where a jury instruction was “manifestly incorrect” … . Defendant urges us to follow that precedent, arguing that the jury charge misstated the elements of the crime of first degree robbery. Defendant is correct in this regard. On its face, Penal Law § 160.15(3), under which defendant was charged, would appear to require conviction even if a person threatened to use a dangerous instrument that he did not in fact possess. However, the requirement for actual possession is an essential element that has been judicially engrafted onto the statute … . The People argue that the court technically issued a correct charge, because the CJI pattern jury instruction for “Attempt to Commit a Crime” provides for the court to merely “read [the] statutory definition of [the completed] crime and any defined terms as set forth in CJI for that crime” (CJI 2d [NY] Penal Law § 110.00). Because the statutory definition of robbery in the first degree does not, as stated above, require actual possession, they argue, the court’s instruction cannot be criticized. We reject this reasoning, because it reads out of the CJI instruction the words “as set forth in CJI for that crime” (id.). The current version of the CJI charge for Penal Law § 160.15(3) expressly refers to the possession requirement by stating, in pertinent part:

“In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all the evidence in the case beyond a reasonable doubt, both of the following two elements: 1. That on or about (date), in the county of (county), the defendant, (defendant’s name), forcibly stole property from (specify); and 2. That in the course of the commission of the crime [or of immediate flight therefrom], the defendant [or another participant in the crime] possessed a dangerous instrument and used or threatened the immediate use of that dangerous instrument” (CJI 2d [NY] Penal Law § 160.15 [3]) (emphasis added). People v Saigo, 2017 NY Slip Op 04237, 1st Dept 5-30-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE ABSENCE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE, ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, FROM THE JURY CHARGE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ERRONEOUS JURY CHARGE, INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REVERSAL, THE ABSENCE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE, ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, FROM THE JURY CHARGE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, (THE ABSENCE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE, ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, FROM THE JURY CHARGE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/ROBBERY (THE ABSENCE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE, ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, FROM THE JURY CHARGE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)

WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED.

The First Department noted that the People’s motion to set aside defendant’s sentence based upon an illegal sentence was properly brought and granted. Where the criteria are met, sentencing a defendant as a predicate felon is mandatory. Defendant should have been so sentenced but was not:

Where a defendant is in fact a predicate offender, sentencing the defendant as a nonpredicate results in an illegal sentence. The provisions of CPL 400.15, governing second violent felony offender adjudications, are mandatory, and neither the People nor a court may ignore or waive a defendant’s predicate status … . The claim that defendant describes as a collateral estoppel argument is without merit. The defective resentencing of defendant as a nonpredicate had no collateral estoppel effect with regard to the People’s timely CPL 440.40 motion, which was a permissible alternative to an appeal. “When the People seek to challenge a sentence as illegal, they may appeal . . ., or, within one year of the judgment, they may make a motion to set aside the sentence” … . The very purpose of a (defendant’s) CPL 440.20 motion or a (People’s) 440.40 motion is to correct a substantively illegal sentence without the necessity of an appeal; obviously, the court deciding such a motion is not bound by a sentencing court’s express or implied finding that the challenged sentence was legal. People v Heisler, 2017 NY Slip Op 04220, 1st Dept 5-30-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED)/SENTENCING (PREDICATE FELON, WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED)/PREDICATE FELON (SENTENCING, WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED)/SENTENCE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED)

,

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)

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