You are here: / Criminal Law

NO EVIDENCE JURY COULD SEE ORANGE CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT PANTS WORN BY DEFENDANT ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL, DEFENDANT NOT DENIED A FAIR TRIAL.

The Court of Appeals determined the fact that defendant appeared on the first day of the trial wearing orange sweat pants issued by the department of corrections did not require reversal. There was no evidence the jury could see the defendant's legs:

Under the circumstances described here by the trial judge on the record, there is no merit to defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial because he was compelled to appear before the jury in correctional garb. We have previously held that “to require [a defendant] to appear in convict's attire — a continuing visual communication to the jury — is to deny” the defendant the right to appear “with the dignity and self-respect of a free and innocent” person … , consistent with the Supreme Court's holding that “[t]he State cannot, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, compel an accused to stand trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable prison clothes” … . These concerns are not implicated here, however, where there is no evidence that defendant's orange correctional pants were visible to the jury and the clothing that was visible to the jury was clearly not identifiable as correctional garb … . People v Then, 2017 NY Slip Op 01021, CtApp 2-9-17

CRIMINAL LAW (NO EVIDENCE JURY COULD SEE ORANGE CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT PANTS WORN BY DEFENDANT ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL, DEFENDANT NOT DENIED A FAIR TRIAL)/PRISON CLOTHES (CRIMINAL LAW, (NO EVIDENCE JURY COULD SEE ORANGE CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT PANTS WORN BY DEFENDANT ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL, DEFENDANT NOT DENIED A FAIR TRIAL)

FAILURE TO READBACK THE CROSS OF AN IMPORTANT WITNESS PURSUANT TO THE JURY’S REQUEST REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Second Department, in a case remitted after reversal by the Court of Appeals, determined the trial judge’s failure to respond to the deliberating jury’s request for a witness’s (Richard’s) testimony by reading both the direct and the cross deprived defendant of a fair trial. The Second Department had previously found the error to be a mode of proceedings error that required reversal in the absence of an objection. The Court of Appeals held the error was not a mode of proceedings error. On remand the Second Department addressed the unpreserved error in the interest of justice:

Although the defendant’s contentions regarding the jury note are unpreserved for appellate review, as no objections were raised (see CPL 470.05[2]), we reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a]). Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court’s failure to meaningfully respond to the jury note requesting a readback of Richards’ testimony deprived the defendant of a fair trial … . ” [A] request for a reading of testimony generally is presumed to include cross-examination which impeaches the testimony to be read back, and any such testimony should be read to the jury unless the jury indicates otherwise'” ,,, . Richards was the only witness to the argument and the shooting, other than the complainant and the defendant. Richards’ cross-examination testimony included testimony that was relevant to the defense, directly impeached significant portions of his direct examination testimony, and was detrimental to the prosecution. As a result, the trial court’s readback of only Richards’ direct examination testimony in response to the jury’s request seriously prejudiced the defendant … . People v Morris, 2017 NY Slip Op 01007, 2nd Dept 2-8-17

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO READBACK THE CROSS OF AN IMPORTANT WITNESS PURSUANT TO THE JURY’S REQUEST REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/JURY NOTES (CRMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO READBACK THE CROSS OF AN IMPORTANT WITNESS PURSUANT TO THE JURY’S REQUEST REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)

,

ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTIONS PRECLUDED BY FAILURE TO PROVE THE 38-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT WAS MORE THAN 18 YEARS OLD, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT FIRST DEGREE CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF A GRAVE RISK OF DEATH.

The Fourth Department determined the failure to offer any proof the 38-year-old defendant was more than 18 years old precluded conviction of attempted first degree murder (defendant shot at police officers). The convictions were reduced to attempted second degree murder. The Fourth Department further determined the reckless endangerment first degree was not supported by sufficient evidence that the passenger in defendant’s vehicle was exposed to a “grave risk of death” when defendant rammed a police vehicle. The conviction was reduced to recklessd endangerment second degree:

As the People correctly concede, however, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant was more than 18 years old at the time of the crimes. Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review … , we exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant was in fact 38 years old at the time of the crimes in September 2011, and the jury naturally had the opportunity to observe his appearance during his trial in 2012, but that opportunity “does not, by itself, satisfy the People’s obligation to prove defendant’s age” … , and there was no evidence at trial bearing on his age … . The evidence is sufficient to establish that defendant intended to kill each of the officers … , and we reject defendant’s further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to his intent … . We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the conviction under counts one and two to attempted murder in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]), and we remit the matter to County Court for sentencing on those counts. * * *

There was evidence that defendant “rammed” the side of the police vehicle with the part of his truck in which his girlfriend was sitting, but neither officer could estimate how fast defendant was going at impact, and the relatively short distance he traveled toward the police vehicle tended to show that he could not have been going very fast. Furthermore, both vehicles remained operable after the collision, and there was no evidence that anyone sustained any injury from it. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we conclude that it is legally insufficient to establish that the collision created a grave risk of death to defendant’s girlfriend … . People v VanGorden, 2017 NY Slip Op 00877, 4th Dept 2-3-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTIONS PRECLUDED BY FAILURE TO PROVE THE 38-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT WAS MORE THAN 18 YEARS OLD, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT FIRST DEGREE CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF A GRAVE RISK OF DEATH)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTIONS PRECLUDED BY FAILURE TO PROVE THE 38-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT WAS MORE THAN 18 YEARS OLD, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT FIRST DEGREE CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF A GRAVE RISK OF DEATH)

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE VEHICLE STOP, CONSENT TO SEARCH THE CAR WAS THEREFORE DEEMED INVOLUNTARY AND THE SEIZED COCAINE SUPPRESSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People did not come forward with proof demonstrating the legality of a vehicle stop. Defendant and the driver were the only persons in the car. A large amount of cocaine was seized from the back seat area. The driver purportedly consented to the search. However, because, at the suppression hearing, no proof of the legality of the stop was presented, the consent was deemed involuntary and the evidence suppressed:

We conclude that, “[b]ecause the People failed to present evidence at the suppression hearing establishing the legality of the police conduct, [the driver’s] purported consent to the search of his vehicle was involuntary[,] and all evidence seized from the vehicle as a result of that consent should have been suppressed” … . We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, grant defendant’s omnibus motion insofar as it sought suppression of the cocaine found in the vehicle, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment. People v Kendrick, 2017 NY Slip Op 00870, 4th Dept 2-3-17

CRIMINAL LAW (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE VEHICLE STOP, CONSENT TO SEARCH THE CAR WAS THEREFORE DEEMED INVOLUNTARY AND THE SEIZED COCAINE SUPPRESSED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE VEHICLE STOP, CONSENT TO SEARCH THE CAR WAS THEREFORE DEEMED INVOLUNTARY AND THE SEIZED COCAINE SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESSION (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE VEHICLE STOP, CONSENT TO SEARCH THE CAR WAS THEREFORE DEEMED INVOLUNTARY AND THE SEIZED COCAINE SUPPRESSED)/STREET STOPS (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE VEHICLE STOP, CONSENT TO SEARCH THE CAR WAS THEREFORE DEEMED INVOLUNTARY AND THE SEIZED COCAINE SUPPRESSED)

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Fourth Department determined the denial of a for cause challenge to a juror required reversal:

Here, in response to the prosecutor’s question regarding whether any member of the panel thought that he or she could not be fair and impartial due to the allegations of driving while intoxicated, prospective juror No. 13 indicated that, due to situations in her past, she did not see any reason why anyone would need to drink and drive, and she could not be fair and impartial. Upon follow-up questioning by the court, she assured the court that she could set those feelings aside. Later, however, in response to defense counsel’s questions, prospective juror No. 13 indicated that she had wondered what defendant did wrong when she first walked into the courtroom, and that “obviously” she felt that “he must have done something wrong or he wouldn’t have” been in court. The court asked follow-up questions, but cut off the prospective juror before she could reply to one such question, and the court’s final substantive question failed to establish the prospective juror’s state of mind. Consequently, the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s challenge for cause to prospective juror No. 13. People v Betances, 2017 NY Slip Op 00804, 4th Dept 2-3-17

CRIMINAL LAW (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)

MOTION FOR DNA TESTING OF CERTAIN TRIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for DNA testing of some, but not all, of the evidence admitted at his trial:

Here, the defendant established that if forensic DNA testing had been conducted on two blood samples, a bloody sweater, and fingernail scrapings of the decedent, if any, recovered by the police from the crime scene, and if the results of such testing had been admitted at trial, there exists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to him … . However, with respect to the defendant’s request for forensic DNA testing of hair and fibers, the defendant failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to him had DNA testing results of those items been admitted into evidence … .

In opposition to the motion, the People failed to come forward with evidence demonstrating the existence or nonexistence of the materials sought, and whether such materials are available for testing. “[T]he defendant does not bear the burden of showing that the specified DNA evidence exists and is available in suitable quantities to make testing feasible. To the contrary, it is the People, as the gatekeeper of the evidence, who must show what evidence exists and whether the evidence is available for testing” … . “[A] conclusory assertion that the evidence no longer exists is legally insufficient” … . People v Robinson, 2017 NY Slip Op 00665, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION FOR DNA TESTING OF CERTAIN TRIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION FOR DNA TESTING OF CERTAIN TRIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED)/DNA (CRMINAL LAW, MOTION FOR DNA TESTING OF CERTAIN TRIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED)

NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial on the criminal possession of a weapon counts.  The People requested a jury instruction for constructive possession and the instruction was given. The evidence at trial did not provide a basis for the instruction:

After the gunpoint robbery of the supermarket, committed by a single perpetrator, the defendant was arrested when he was found hiding in an attic of a nearby house. Shortly thereafter, police officers recovered a gun from the attic. The People sought to prove at trial, among other things, that the defendant was the individual who committed the robbery with the gun recovered from the attic. In the bill of particulars and throughout the trial, the People’s theory on the counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was that the defendant possessed the subject gun in the supermarket. Even at the charge conference, at which the People requested a charge of constructive possession, the People maintained that the basis of those counts was the defendant’s possession of the gun in the supermarket. Since there was no evidence from which the jury could conclude that the defendant constructively possessed the gun in the supermarket, that charge should not have been given … . People v Golden, 2017 NY Slip Op 00661, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

A MOVING CAR IS A PLACE WHERE THE VICTIM IS NOT LIKELY TO BE FOUND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KIDNAPPING STATUTE, UNDER THE FACTS, UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined defendants were properly convicted of kidnapping and, under the facts, unlawful imprisonment was not a lesser included offense. The defendants taped the victim’s wrists behind his back, taped his arms to his body, and then transported the victim by car from New York to Philadelphia, where the victim was released at night in a deserted area:

We reject defendants’ argument that a car on a public thoroughfare may not, as a matter of law, be considered “a place where [the victim] is not likely to be found” [within the meaning of the kidnapping statute]  (Penal Law § 135.00  [2]). …

Defendants suggest that a car may only be treated as a place where the victim is “not likely to be found” if (1) the defendant used or threatened to use a weapon to put or keep the victim in the vehicle, (2) the defendant used the vehicle to take the victim to a secluded place, or (3) the victim was not visible to the public within the car. However, neither Penal Law § 135.00(2) nor any case law imposes such requirements of proof. …

Unlawful imprisonment does not qualify here as a lesser included offense of the kidnapping charge, because there was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendants unlawfully imprisoned [the victim] but did not kidnap him. People v Grohoske, 2017 NY Slip Op 00617, 1st Dept 1-31-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (A MOVING CAR IS A PLACE WHERE THE VICTIM IS NOT LIKELY TO BE FOUND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KIDNAPPING STATUTE, UNDER THE FACTS, UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE)/KIDNAPPING (A MOVING CAR IS A PLACE WHERE THE VICTIM IS NOT LIKELY TO BE FOUND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KIDNAPPING STATUTE, UNDER THE FACTS, UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE)/UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT (A MOVING CAR IS A PLACE WHERE THE VICTIM IS NOT LIKELY TO BE FOUND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KIDNAPPING STATUTE, UNDER THE FACTS, UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE)

,

JURY-NOTE ERROR REQUIRED REVERSAL; ALL INDICTMENT COUNTS WERE TAINTED BY THE JURY-NOTE ERROR; UNSWORN VIDEOTAPED STATEMENT OF WITNESS PROPERLY ALLOWED BECAUSE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE WITNESS’S UNAVAILABILITY.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined (1) there was no evidence the trial judge gave counsel notice and a chance to respond to a jury note, (2) the jury-note error affected all the counts of which defendant was convicted, and (3) the videotaped statement of an unsworn witness was properly admitted based upon proof the witness was unavailable due to defendant’s intentional misconduct:

Here, the jury submitted a note stating, “Please clarify 1st degree assault; 2nd degree assault; 2nd degree manslaughter [and] 2nd degree murder.” The Supreme Court did not read the contents of the note into the record at any point, and there is no record indication that the court communicated to the parties that a jury note had been received. Instead, after a recess for deliberations, the court merely stated “let us revisit these counts,” and then it gave the charges for those offenses. The court’s failure to provide counsel with meaningful notice of a substantive jury note was a mode of proceedings error … , which requires reversal of the judgment and a new trial … . …

When the error at issue relates to a mistake in the court’s charge to the jury, the primary focus is on any effect the error “might have had on the jury’s ability to deliberate fairly on the non-tainted counts, although attention must of course be paid as well to the evidentiary relationship between the tainted counts and the non-tainted counts” … . Reversal is required if “there is a reasonable possibility’ that the jury’s decision to convict on the tainted counts influenced its guilty verdict on the remaining counts in a meaningful way'” … . In this case, given the evidentiary relationship between the tainted counts and the weapon possession count, it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that the jury’s decision to convict on the other counts did not influence its guilty verdict on the weapon possession count … . …

In a criminal case, the out-of-court statements of a witness may be admitted as direct evidence at trial where, inter alia, the witness is unavailable to testify and proof establishes that the witness’s unavailability was procured by intentional misconduct on the part of the defendant … . People v Thomas, 2017 NY Slip Op 00497, 2nd Dept 1-25-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY-NOTE ERROR REQUIRED REVERSAL, ALL COUNTS TAINTED BY THE JURY-NOTE ERROR, UNSWORN VIDEOTAPED STATEMENT OF WITNESS PROPERLY ALLOWED BECAUSE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE WITNESS’S UNAVAILABILITY)/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY-NOTE ERROR REQUIRED REVERSAL, ALL COUNTS TAINTED BY THE JURY-NOTE ERROR, UNSWORN VIDEOTAPED STATEMENT OF WITNESS PROPERLY ALLOWED BECAUSE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE WITNESS’S UNAVAILABILITY)/EVIDENCE (CRMINAL LAW, UNSWORN VIDEOTAPED STATEMENT OF WITNESS PROPERLY ALLOWED BECAUSE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE WITNESS’S UNAVAILABILITY)

,

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to support the indictment (intimidating a victim or witness). The court explained the applicable standard of proof:

“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 Franov, 2017 NY Slip Op 00482, 2nd Dept 1-25-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/GRAND JURY (EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

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