You are here: / Criminal Law

PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE.

The First Department determined the showup identification was not unduly suggestive, despite the presence of police officers and an officer’s statement to the victim they may have someone who matched the perpetrator’s description:

Police, who undisputedly had a sufficient basis for a common-law inquiry of defendant based on their investigation of a robbery, entered defendant’s apartment with the consent of another resident. After the resident who answered the door knocked on a bathroom door, defendant came out of the bathroom and complied with an officer’s request to move to a position between two officers. Meanwhile, an officer told the victim that the police might have someone who matched the description, and then brought him to the apartment. While defendant was flanked on both sides by two officers, and other officers were nearby, the victim identified defendant as one of the robbers. …

The showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive, in light of the “close spatial and temporal proximity to the robbery, as the result of a single unbroken chain of events,” and the fact that defendant was not physically restrained … . Notwithstanding the presence of several police officers in or near the apartment, and an officer’s statement to the victim that the police had someone who might match the description provided by the victim, “the overall effect of the allegedly suggestive circumstances was not significantly greater than what is inherent in any showup” … . People v Vizcaino, 2017 NY Slip Op 01811, 1st Dept 3-5-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICER’S AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICER’S AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)/SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION (PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICER’S AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE)

,

ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS.

The Third Department noted an acknowledged anomaly in the risk assessment guidelines for child pornography that may result in the overestimation of the risk. Because the SORA court did not make any findings about the possible overestimation, the case was remitted:

The Court of Appeals has found that an anomaly exists in assessing points to child pornography offenders under risk factor 7 in the RAI, in that the absence of a previous relationship between the offender and children pictured in pornographic images may not normally heighten the risk that the offender presents to the community, whereas a situation in which “the offender and the children are acquainted would seem to present a greater threat to the community, not a lesser one” … . The Court further concluded that such an anomaly may result in an overestimation of a child pornography offender’s risk of reoffense and danger to the public … . While the Court concluded that, despite the anomaly, the plain language of the guidelines of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders authorizes the assessment of points against child pornography offenders under risk factor 7, it further stated that, “in deciding a child pornography offender’s application for a downward departure, a [Sex Offender Registration Act] court should, in the exercise of its discretion, give particularly strong consideration to the possibility that adjudicating the offender in accordance with the guidelines point score and without departing downward might lead to an excessive level of registration” … .

In denying the request for a downward departure, County Court found that points were properly assessed under risk factor 7, but did not take into consideration the potential overestimation of defendant’s risk of reoffense and the danger to the public created by the assessment of those points. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for the court to determine whether such an overestimation was created and whether a downward departure is therefore warranted … . People v Kemp, 2017 NY Slip Op 01618, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS)/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED RISK, CASE REMITTED FOR FINDINGS)/

, ,

INSUFFICIENT INQUIRY INTO SEX OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF.

The Second Department determined the judge did not make a sufficient inquiry before allowing the sex offender to represent himself in this SORA proceeding:

Where a defendant makes a timely and unequivocal request to waive the right to counsel and represent herself or himself, “the trial court is obligated to conduct a searching inquiry’ to ensure that the defendant’s waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” … . “A waiver is voluntarily made when the trial court advises the defendant and can be certain that the dangers and disadvantages of giving up the fundamental right to counsel have been impressed upon the defendant'” … . “A searching inquiry’ does not have to be made in a formulaic manner, . . . although it is better practice to ask the defendant about [her or] his age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures and other relevant factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, voluntary waiver'” … . …

… [W]e conclude that the Supreme Court failed to conduct the requisite searching inquiry to ensure that the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel was unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent … . The court made only minimal inquiry into the defendant’s age, experience, intelligence, education, and exposure to the legal system, and did not explain the risk inherent in proceeding pro se or the advantages of representation by counsel. The court’s failure to conduct a searching inquiry renders the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel invalid and requires reversal … . People v Griffin, 2017 NY Slip Op 01577, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, INSUFFICIENT INQUIRY INTO SEX OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (INSUFFICIENT INQUIRY INTO SEX OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF)/ATTORNEYS (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, INSUFFICIENT INQUIRY INTO SEX OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF)/

, ,

A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, reversing County Court, determined a conviction by guilty plea can be challenged on actual innocence grounds. The defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to set aside her conviction both on her actual innocence claim and her ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Defendant was a nurse who bathed a profoundly disabled child. After the bath blisters appeared on the child’s skin. At the time she stated she didn’t think the water was hot. In her motion to set aside, she alleged that she was convinced during interrogation that the water must have been too hot and pled guilty for that reason. Expert evidence indicates the blisters may not have been burns, but rather were a reaction to antibiotics. A biopsy was consistent with an allergic reaction:

Having determined that a defendant’s plea of guilty does not absolutely bar that defendant from maintaining a freestanding actual innocence claim pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h), we address whether the County Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the judgment based on actual innocence. Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant is entitled to a hearing on her actual innocence claim. “A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration”‘ by the court” … . Here, by submitting her affidavit, [defendant’s expert’s] affirmation, and other material, such as the skin biopsy pathology report, the defendant made the requisite prima facie showing … . We also note that subsequent to the entry of the defendant’s plea of guilty, the civil action against the defendant and her former employer resulted in a jury verdict in their favor. We are mindful that the burden of proof in a civil trial is different than that in a criminal trial and that the evidence presented at each may differ. However, in the civil trial, the jury found that the defendant’s care was not a proximate cause of the child’s injuries, despite the fact that the defendant and her former employer were collaterally estopped from contesting liability. People v Tiger, 2017 NY Slip Op 01575, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO SET ASIDE CONVICTION, A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/SET ASIDE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/ACTUAL INNOCENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)

,

EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to demonstrate defendant’s knowledge he possessed cocaine. The defendant received a package containing cocaine addressed to a name (not his name) he used to sign for it and the package was addressed to a location which was not where defendant resided. The defendant was arrested before the package was opened:

“Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted—and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence—would warrant conviction” … . ” Legally sufficient evidence’ means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof” … . ” In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt'” … . “The reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts, supply proof of every element of the charged crimes, and whether the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference. That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference” … . People v Jimenez, 2017 NY Slip Op 01566, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW(EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/GRAND JURIES (EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, POSSESSION OF (EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)

,

UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress his statements should have been granted:

At the suppression hearing, a police detective testified that while the defendant was in custody, he administered Miranda warnings … and took the defendant’s written statement. On cross-examination, the detective admitted that 10 minutes prior to taking the defendant’s Mirandized written statement, he questioned the defendant without administering Miranda warnings. The written statement itself refers to incriminating statements made by the defendant during the earlier, pre-Miranda questioning. The Supreme Court denied suppression.

“[W]here an improper, unwarned statement gives rise to a subsequent Mirandized statement as part of a single continuous chain of events,’ there is inadequate assurance that the Miranda warnings were effective in protecting a defendant’s rights, and the warned statement must also be suppressed” … . Here, the improper unwarned statements made by the defendant gave rise to a subsequent Mirandized written statement as part of a single continuous chain of events. Accordingly, both the oral statement and the written statement should have been suppressed. People v Ghee, 2017 NY Slip Op 01564, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENTS, UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

A SEXUAL OFFENSE WHICH DEFENDANT ADMITTED COMMITTING BUT WITH WHICH HE WAS NEVER CHARGED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED.

The Third Department determined a sexual offense which defendant admitted committing but with which he was never charged could not be considered in the under risk factor 8:

… [W]e agree with defendant that 10 points were improperly assessed for risk factor 8, his “[a]ge at first sex crime.” The People submitted evidence that the victim had recounted to police that her first sexual contact with defendant had occurred in June 2011, when defendant was 19 years old and she was 13 years old; defendant admitted that this incident had occurred but claimed that the victim had been the aggressor. As defendant pointed out at the SORA hearing, however, he was never charged with or convicted of a crime consisting of that conduct. Under the criminal history section of the RAI, 10 points may be assessed under risk factor 8 where “[t]he offender committed a sex offense, that subsequently resulted in an adjudication or conviction for a sex crime, at age 20 or less” … . The commentary similarly instructs, with regard to risk factor 8, that “criminal convictions [and] youthful offender adjudications  . . . are to be considered in scoring this category, as well as [risk factors] 9 [number and nature of prior crimes] and 10 [recency of prior felony or sex crime]” … . To that end, the commentary specifically indicates that, for purposes of the criminal history section of the RAI, “the term ‘crime’ includes criminal convictions [and] youthful offender adjudications” and that “[c]onvictions for Penal Law offenses and unclassified misdemeanors should be considered” … . The commentary further clarifies that, “[w]here an offender has admitted committing an act of sexual misconduct for which there has been no such judicial determination, it should not be used in scoring his [or her] criminal history” … . …

While proof of the commission of a prior sex crime committed by an offender at age 20 or under that did not result in a conviction or adjudication may be relied upon to argue in favor of an upward departure … , the People did not request this alternative relief from County Court at any point. People v Current, 2017 NY Slip Op 01415, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, A SEXUAL OFFENSE WHICH DEFENDANT ADMITTED COMMITTING BUT WITH WHICH HE WAS NEVER CHARGED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (A SEXUAL OFFENSE WHICH DEFENDANT ADMITTED COMMITTING BUT WITH WHICH HE WAS NEVER CHARGED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED)

, ,

DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED; PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge erred when the full circumstantial evidence jury instruction was not given. There was no direct evidence identifying defendant as the robber of the victim, who was sitting in his car at the time he was robbed. Blood matched to the defendant by DNA evidence was found on the handle of the door of the victim’s car. The Third Department also noted that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of acceptable commentary during summation when he told the jury the blood on the victim’s car belonged to the robber:

Contrary to the People’s assertion, this was not a case “where both direct and circumstantial evidence [were] employed to demonstrate . . . defendant’s culpability[,] thereby negating the need for the [requested] charge” … . While there indeed is no question — based upon the victim’s testimony and the photographic evidence contained in the record — that the charged crimes did in fact occur, the record makes clear — and the People readily concede — that there was no direct evidence identifying defendant as the perpetrator. In this regard, while the People are correct that a DNA match “can provide strong evidence of a person’s presence at and participation in a criminal act” … , a defendant’s mere presence at the scene of the crime in close temporal proximity to its commission does not establish his or her identity as the perpetrator … . Simply put, where there is no direct evidence linking the defendant to the charged crimes, courts consistently have required that a circumstantial evidence charge be given … . As the People’s proof relative to the identity of the perpetrator here was entirely circumstantial, Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s request to charge the jury accordingly; moreover, as the proof against defendant was less than overwhelming, we cannot deem the court’s failure to grant the requested charge to be harmless error … . People v James, 2017 NY Slip Op 01409, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, (DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, (DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)

,

PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY WEAKENED BUT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION; DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the People should not have been allowed to impeach their own witness (Abellman) with a prior inconsistent statement which did not contradict the People’s theory of prosecution and the trial judge should have instructed the jury on circumstantial evidence:

Abellman indicated in a written statement to investigators and testimony before the grand jury that defendant was his heroin supplier and that defendant’s heroin was stashed at the apartment. Abellman testified at trial, however, that he did not know defendant, had never bought drugs from defendant and did not recall ever having been to the apartment. * * * … [T]he People extensively questioned Abellman regarding his prior statements by asking if he recalled previously saying, among other things, that defendant supplied him with heroin and that he and defendant frequently went to the apartment to bag heroin and cocaine for sale.

While “[e]vidence of a prior contradictory statement may be received for the limited purpose of impeaching [a] witness’s credibility with respect to his or her testimony,” it is inadmissible where “the testimony of the witness ‘does not tend to disprove the position of the party who called him [or her] and elicited [the contradictory] testimony'” … . Abellman’s trial testimony falls into the latter category, as he did not call defendant’s connection to the heroin into question and only maintained that he had no knowledge of whatever connection there might be. This claimed lack of knowledge “merely failed to corroborate or bolster the [People]’s case” and did not affirmatively “contradict or disprove” evidence presented by them … . …

There was direct evidence of defendant’s dominion and control over the apartment [where the herein was found] but, as things ultimately stood, proof of his dominion and control over the heroin and related items was circumstantial. County Court was obliged to, but did not, give a circumstantial evidence charge to the jury under these circumstances … . People v Gaston, 2017 NY Slip Op 01411, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION)/PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, EOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION)/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION)/IMPEACHMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION)/CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION)

UNDER THE FACTS, THE ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING CONVICTION MERGED WITH THE SEXUAL ABUSE AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS.

The Third Department, in the interest of justice, determined that the attempted kidnapping conviction merged with the sexual abuse and assault convictions:

The merger doctrine bars convictions for kidnapping “based on acts which are so much the part of another substantive crime that the substantive crime could not have been committed without such acts and that independent criminal responsibility may not fairly be attributed to them” … . While application of the doctrine is dependent on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, “a kidnapping is generally deemed to merge with another offense . . . ‘where there is minimal asportation immediately preceding’ the other crime or ‘where the restraint and underlying crime are essentially simultaneous'” … .

Here, the victim’s testimony, as well as the surveillance footage, established that defendant immediately began punching the victim upon opening the door to her vehicle and that, after dragging her roughly 58 feet, he continued to punch the victim while forcibly subjecting her to sexual contact. This brutal encounter lasted between three and four minutes. Under these circumstances, because the conduct underlying the charge of attempted kidnapping in the second degree was simultaneous to, and inseparable from, the conduct underlying the charges of sexual abuse in the first degree and assault in the second degree … , we must apply the doctrine of merger, reverse defendant’s conviction of attempted kidnapping in the second degree and dismiss that count of the indictment … . People v Bautista, 2017 NY Slip Op 01410, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (UNDER THE FACTS, THE ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING CONVICTION MERGED WITH THE SEXUAL ABUSE AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS)/KIDNAPPING (UNDER THE FACTS, THE ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING CONVICTION MERGED WITH THE SEXUAL ABUSE AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS)/MERGER (CRIMINAL LAW, UNDER THE FACTS, THE ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING CONVICTION MERGED WITH THE SEXUAL ABUSE AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS)

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