You are here: / Criminal Law
,

DEFENDANT’S HAND UNDER HIS HOODIE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY FIRST WHICH REQUIRES THE DISPLAY OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A FIREARM.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion, determined the evidence was sufficient to support the element of robbery first degree which requires the display of what appears to be a firearm. The defendant threatened to shoot the teller and, at some point in time, one of his hands was under his hoodie.  The defendant was quickly apprehended and no firearm was found:

We reject defendant’s assumption that the timing of the moment at which the defendant places a hand under his clothing is dispositive of the legal sufficiency analysis. A victim may reasonably believe that a gun is being used, on the basis of conduct that makes it appear that the defendant is holding a gun, regardless of whether the defendant makes a movement while addressing the victim or keeps his hand concealed throughout the encounter in a manner and location suggesting the presence of a gun. Whether a defendant displays what appears to be a firearm does not depend on when precisely the defendant begins the display, provided it occurs “in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom” (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). People v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 02362, CtApp 3-28-17

 

,

EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED PRIOR IDENTICAL SEXUAL ASSAULT NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW INTENT, MOTIVE, OR AS BACKGROUND EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined evidence of an alleged prior sexual assault, identical to the charged offense, should not have been admitted to show intent or motive, or as background evidence:

Here, … the victim’s testimony as to the alleged prior sexual abuse was not necessary to show the nature of the relationship between her and defendant or to “sort out ambiguous but material facts” … . The victim testified as to her relationship with defendant, stating that they are relatives who lived, at certain times, in the same home and that on the night of the indicted sexual assault, she and her boyfriend went to defendant’s home to spend time together and drink alcohol. The introduction of the prior alleged assault was not necessary to clarify their relationship or to establish a narrative of the relevant events.

Further, the evidence of the uncharged crime was not admissible to show intent. The intent here — sexual gratification — can be inferred from the act. * * *

To the extent the evidence was admissible to show defendant’s motive in getting the victim drunk, the evidence was highly prejudicial, as it showed that defendant had allegedly engaged in the exact same behavior on a prior occasion with the same victim — classic propensity evidence. The prejudicial nature of the Molineux evidence far outweighed any probative value that may be attributed to it. People v Leonard, 2017 NY Slip Op 02359, CtApp 3-28-17

 

,

POSSESSION OF COCAINE CAN BE PROVEN WITHOUT SUBMITTING THE COCAINE ITSELF AS EVIDENCE.

The Court of Appeals, in a short memorandum decision, noted that possession of cocaine can be proven without submitting the cocaine itself as evidence:

Although the People did not recover or introduce any of the cocaine that defendant was charged with possessing, “direct evidence in the form of contraband or other physical evidence is not the only adequate proof” (People v Samuels , 99 NY2d 20, 24 [2002]). The People presented sufficient evidence in the form of, among other things, defendant’s intercepted phone calls replete with drug-related conversations, visual surveillance, and the testimony of cooperating witnesses. People v Whitehead, 2017 NY Slip Op 02358, CtApp 3-28-17

 

FINE BELOW THE MINIMUM STATUTORY AMOUNT WAS ILLEGAL AND WAS THEREFORE VACATED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the $1500 fine imposed in connection with a DWI was illegal because the statute required a minimum fine of $2000.00. The court determined no fine should be imposed. The dissent agreed the fine was illegal but argued the matter should be remitted:

As the People correctly concede, however, the court erred in imposing a $1,500 fine. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 (1) (c) (ii) provides that a person convicted of driving while intoxicated as a class D felony “shall be punished by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars or by a period of imprisonment as provided in the penal law, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” The court therefore had the authority to impose a fine and a sentence of imprisonment, but was required to impose a minimum fine of $2,000 if it chose to impose any fine. We cannot allow the $1,500 illegal fine to stand … and, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, we conclude that no fine should be imposed. We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the fine. People v Neal, 2017 NY Slip Op 02320, 4th Dept 3-24-17

CRIMINAL LAW (FINE BELOW THE MINIMUM STATUTORY AMOUNT WAS ILLEGAL AND WAS THEREFORE VACATED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION)/FINES (CRIMINAL LAW, FINE BELOW THE MINIMUM STATUTORY AMOUNT WAS ILLEGAL AND WAS THEREFORE VACATED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION)

, ,

SORA GUIDELINE WHICH ALLOWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED.

The Fourth Department determined the language in the SORA guideline which allows a juvenile delinquency adjudication to be used to calculate points in the criminal history category should not be followed because it conflicts with provisions of the Family Court Act:

The risk assessment guidelines issued by the Board provide that a juvenile delinquency adjudication is considered a crime for purposes of assessing points under the criminal history section of the risk assessment instrument (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [Guidelines], at 6 [2006]). Family Court Act § 381.2 (1) provides, however, that neither the fact that a person was before Family Court for a juvenile delinquency hearing, nor any confession, admission or statement made by such a person is admissible as evidence against him or her in any other court. Section 380.1 (1) further provides that “[n]o adjudication under this article may be denominated a conviction and no person adjudicated a juvenile delinquent shall be denominated a criminal by reason of such adjudication.” Given this conflict between the Guidelines and the plain language of the Family Court Act, we agree with the [2nd] Department[ ] … and conclude that the Board “exceeded its authority by adopting that portion of the Guidelines which includes juvenile delinquency adjudications in its definition of crimes for the purpose of determining a sex offender’s criminal history” … . People v Brown, 2017 NY Slip Op 02323, 4th Dept 3-24-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA GUIDELINE WHICH ALLOWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SORA GUIDELINE WHICH ALLOWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED)/FAMILY LAW (SORA GUIDELINE WHICH ALLOWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (SORA GUIDELINE WHICH ALLOWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED) 

,

DEFENDANT THREW BAGS OF COCAINE ONTO THE FLOOR IN PLAIN SIGHT OF POLICE OFFICERS, NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE CHARGE.

The Fourth Department determined the evidence was insufficient for conviction of the tampering with evidence charge. Defendant threw bags of cocaine on the floor. There was insufficient evidence that the act of throwing the drugs on the floor was intended to conceal the evidence:

… [T]he evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of tampering with physical evidence. Insofar as relevant here, a person is guilty of that crime when, “[b]elieving that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he [or she] suppresses it by any act of concealment” … . The People’s theory was that defendant tampered with physical evidence by throwing bags of cocaine onto the floor of a store with the intent of concealing the drugs from the pursuing police officers and thereby preventing the use of the drugs in a prospective official proceeding. The evidence at trial established that officers observed defendant throw bags of suspected crack cocaine onto the floor when he passed through the front entrance of the store. Although the offense of tampering with physical evidence does not require the actual suppression of physical evidence, there must be an act of concealment while intending to suppress the evidence … . We conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant accomplished an act of concealment inasmuch as he dropped the items onto the floor in plain sight of the officers … . People v Parker, 2017 NY Slip Op 02208, 4th Dept 3-24-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT THREW BAGS OF COCAINE ONTO THE FLOOR IN PLAIN SIGHT OF POLICE OFFICERS, NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE CHARGE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT THREW BAGS OF COCAINE ONTO THE FLOOR IN PLAIN SIGHT OF POLICE OFFICERS, NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE CHARGE)/TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE (DEFENDANT THREW BAGS OF COCAINE ONTO THE FLOOR IN PLAIN SIGHT OF POLICE OFFICERS, NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE CHARGE)

FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE INTO RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the trial court erred when it did not read the contents of a jury note into the record. The note said the jury “was not sure what to do:”

The record establishes that a jury note marked as court exhibit 8 stated that “[w]e have made decision on the Third Count we are having hard time with 1 and 2 just giving you are [sic] status.” Soon thereafter, a jury note marked as court exhibit 9 stated that “[w]e have arrived on decision on 2 and 3, but we have a lot of work to do on #1. I don[‘]t see it being quick. Not sure what to do. We ars [sic] starting to make way.” * * *

Our dissenting colleague concludes that the jury’s statement, “[n]ot sure what to do,” was a ministerial inquiry concerning the logistics of the jury’s deliberations, i.e., the jury was asking whether it should continue deliberating that evening considering the late hour. We agree that the note could be interpreted that way, but we conclude that it also could be interpreted as it was interpreted by the court, i.e., the jury was having difficulty reaching a unanimous verdict and was making a substantive inquiry for guidance concerning further deliberations. In response to the note, the court issued an Allen-type charge. Quite simply, even if we consider all the surrounding circumstances, the jury note was ambiguous, and we must resolve that ambiguity in defendant’s favor .. . People v Morrison, 2017 NY Slip Op 02324, 4th Dept 3-24-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE INTO RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL)/JURY NOTE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE INTO RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL)

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE FROM THE CODEFENDANTS, CODEFENDANTS TOOK AN AGGRESSIVE ADVERSERIAL STANCE AGAINST DEFENDANT AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s trial for criminal possession of a weapon should have been severed from the trial of his codefendants for the same offense. At trial the codefendants alleged it was defendant who possessed the weapon:

We conclude that the codefendants’ respective attorneys “took an aggressive adversarial stance against [defendant at trial], in effect becoming a second [and a third] prosecutor” … . We further conclude that the ” essence or core of the defenses [were] in conflict, such that the jury, in order to believe the core of one defense, . . . necessarily [had to] disbelieve the core of the other’ ” … . Thus, in retrospect … , there was “a significant danger . . . that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer defendant’s guilt,” and therefore severance was required … . People v Mcguire, 2017 NY Slip Op 02206, 4th Dept 3-24-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE FROM THE CODEFENDANTS, CODEFENDANTS TOOK AN AGGRESSIVE ADVERSERIAL STANCE AGAINST DEFENDANT AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/SEVERANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE FROM THE CODEFENDANTS, CODEFENDANTS TOOK AN AGGRESSIVE ADVERSERIAL STANCE AGAINST DEFENDANT AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

DIFFERENT OFFENSE DATES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION REQUIRED DISMISSAL.

The Fourth Department determined the superior court information (SCI) must be dismissed because it did not charge the same offenses which were charged in the written waiver of indictment (different dates):

Here, the felony complaint charged defendant with the commission of robbery in the first degree “on or about the 2nd day of 2011,” i.e., January 2, 2011. The written waiver of indictment, however, specified that defendant waived his right to indictment with respect to the commission of robbery in the first degree on February 2, 2012, and the SCI itself charged defendant with the commission of robbery in the first degree on February 2, 2011. Inasmuch as robbery is a single-act offense … , the January 2, 2011 robbery charged in the felony complaint was a ” different crime entirely’ ” from both the February 2, 2012 robbery set forth in the waiver of indictment and the February 2, 2011 robbery charged in the SCI … . Indeed, “the [dates] set forth in the [three] instruments,” i.e., the felony complaint, the waiver of indictment, and the SCI, “exclude any possibility that they were based on the same criminal conduct” … . The SCI therefore violates CPL 195.20 and must be dismissed as jurisdictionally defective … .

The SCI is also jurisdictionally defective inasmuch as it violates CPL 200.15, which provides in relevant part that a “superior court information . . . shall not include an offense not named in the written waiver of indictment.” That “express prohibition” was violated here … , inasmuch as the SCI included an offense, i.e., a robbery in the first degree committed on February 2, 2011 that was not set forth in the written waiver of indictment, which identified only a robbery in the first degree committed on February 2, 2012. People v Walker, 2017 NY Slip Op 02200, 4th Dept 3-24-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DIFFERENT OFFENSE DATES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION REQUIRED DISMISSAL)/SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (DIFFERENT OFFENSE DATES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION REQUIRED DISMISSAL)/INDICTMENT, WAIVER OF (DIFFERENT OFFENSE DATES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION REQUIRED DISMISSAL)

AMENDMENT OF INDICTMENTS CHARGING A COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT TO CHARGES WHICH REQUIRE A UNANIMOUS VERDICT WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR ACT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO BE TRIED ONLY ON THE CRIMES CHARGED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the indictments were improperly amended after trial:

We agree with defendant … that the court erred in granting the People’s motion to amend the indictments at the close of proof. The fact that defendant consented to the amendments is of no moment because he has ” a fundamental and nonwaivable right to be tried only on the crimes charged’ ” … . “An indictment may not be amended in any respect which changes the theory or theories of the prosecution as reflected in the evidence before the grand jury which filed it” … . Unlike the crimes charged in the amended indictments, the crimes of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and predatory sexual assault against a child based upon allegations that defendant committed a course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree as charged in the initial indictments do not criminalize a specific act, and thus do not require jury unanimity with respect to a specific act … . For that reason, we conclude that the amendments of the indictments “resulted in an impermissible substantive change in the indictment[s] by adding new counts that changed the theory of the prosecution” … . We therefore reverse the judgments insofar as they convicted defendant on those counts, and dismiss those counts of the amended indictments without prejudice to the People to re-present any appropriate charges under those counts to another grand jury. People v Vickers, 2017 NY Slip Op 02183, 4th Dept 3-24-17

CRIMINAL LAW (AMENDMENT OF INDICTMENTS CHARGING A COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT TO CHARGES WHICH REQUIRE A UNANIMOUS VERDICT WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR ACT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO BE TRIED ONLY ON THE CRIMES CHARGED)/INDICTMENT, AMENDMENT OF (AMENDMENT OF INDICTMENTS CHARGING A COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT TO CHARGES WHICH REQUIRE A UNANIMOUS VERDICT WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR ACT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO BE TRIED ONLY ON THE CRIMES CHARGED)

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