You are here: / Criminal Law
,

TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.

The Court of Appeals determined the testimony of an officer (Mercado) who was present throughout the DWI breathalyzer test process administered by another officer (Harriman) did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Harriman had retired and moved out of state by the time of defendant’s trial:

The only step in the testing process that the Appellate Term found Mercado did not personally perform or observe, and the sole stated basis for that court finding a Confrontation Clause violation, was verification of the simulator solution temperature as displayed on the machine. Inasmuch as the written 13-step checklist completed by Harriman was not admitted into evidence, no testimonial statement by a nontestifying witness concerning the temperature — or any aspect of the testing procedure — was used against defendant. Thus, any argument as to Mercado’s failure to observe the temperature reading would merely relate to whether there was a proper foundation for his testimony, which would not implicate a Confrontation Clause violation … . However, to the extent that the Appellate Term based its decision on the failure of an “essential” step in the testing procedure, the trial record contradicts that court’s conclusion that there was an absence of evidence that the machine will shut itself down and fail to perform the test if the temperature is outside the proper range … . * * *

Mercado observed Harriman perform all of the steps on the checklist and saw the breathalyzer machine print out the results. Based upon his personal observations, Mercado — as a trained and certified operator who was present for the entire testing protocol — was a suitable witness to testify about the testing procedure and results in defendant’s test. Inasmuch as Mercado testified as to his own observations, not as a surrogate for Harriman, there was no Confrontation Clause violation. Any alleged irregularities concerning the testing procedure would relate to the weight of Mercado’s testimony, not its admissibility … . People v Hao Lin, 2017 NY Slip Op 01253, CtApp 2-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (DWI, TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (BREATHALYZER, TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/BREATHALYZER (DWI, (TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, in a memorandum decision that does not explain the relevant facts, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. People v Maldonado, 2017 NY Slip Op 01254, CtApp 2-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTIION REVERSED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTIION REVERSED)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTIION REVERSED)

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED PETITION FOR CIVIL MANAGEMENT OF A SEX OFFENDER FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed a petition for civil management of a sex offender (Ezekial R) for failure to state a cause of action:

The Supreme Court, relying on Matter of State of New York v Donald DD. (24 NY3d 174), dismissed the State of New York’s petition for the civil management of Ezikiel R. on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. This was error. It is true that a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder does not, by itself, “distinguish the sex offender whose mental abnormality subjects him to civil commitment from the typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case” … . Here, however, the petition alleges a mental abnormality based on a composite diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy, and is supported by expert evidence containing an additional diagnosis of conduct disorder, a provisional diagnosis of sexual sadism disorder, and a determination that Ezikiel R.’s actions were suggestive of his potential for deviant sexual behavior and/or sexual preoccupation. Under these circumstances, the petition was facially valid and not subject to dismissal prior to a probable cause hearing … . Although the court at a probable cause hearing or the factfinder at trial may or may not be convinced by the expert evidence, the evidence was not so deficient as to warrant dismissal of the petition at this early juncture … . Matter of State of New York v Ezikiel R., 2017 NY Slip Op 01213, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED PETITION FOR CIVIL MANAGEMENT OF A SEX OFFENDER FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED PETITION FOR CIVIL MANAGEMENT OF A SEX OFFENDER FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION)

FAILURE TO CHARGE THE JURY ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the facts elicited at this murder trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, warranted charges to the jury on manslaughter second and criminally negligent homicide. Because the possession of a weapon charge was directly related to the homicide charge, a new trial on the criminal possession of a weapon count was also necessary:

Under the facts adduced at the trial, the Supreme Court erred in failing to charge manslaughter in the second degree … and criminally negligent homicide … when requested by the defendant. Although a witness testified that, in the course of a physical altercation, the defendant pulled a gun from his back waist area and shot the decedent, the defendant testified that the decedent brandished the gun, that the two men struggled over the weapon, and that the gun accidentally went off during the struggle. Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant may have been guilty of the lesser crimes and not the greater … . Therefore, the failure to charge manslaughter in the second degree and criminally negligent homicide compromised the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

In addition, the failure to charge manslaughter in the second degree, which is defined as “recklessly” causing the death of another person …, had a prejudicial effect with respect to the defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, which is defined as possession of “any loaded firearm” … . The defendant’s possession of the weapon is factually related to the shooting and, thus, given the underlying factual relationship between the crimes, the defendant is entitled to a new trial on the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree … . People v Davis, 2017 NY Slip Op 01223, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO CHARGE THE JURY ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES REQUIRED REVERSAL)/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO CHARGE THE JURY ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES REQUIRED REVERSAL)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO CHARGE THE JURY ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES REQUIRED REVERSAL)

, ,

DEFENDANT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA ON GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES.

The Second Department determined defendant should be given the opportunity to move to vacate his guilty plea on the ground he was not informed of the deportation consequences:

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the record demonstrates that the Supreme Court never advised him of the possibility that he would be deported as a consequence of his plea. In People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), the Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of fundamental fairness, due process requires that a court apprise a noncitizen pleading guilty to a felony of the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the plea of guilty … . A defendant seeking to vacate a plea based on this defect must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that he or she would not have pleaded guilty and would instead have gone to trial had the court warned of the possibility of deportation … .

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court mentioned the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the defendant’s plea. People v Singh, 2017 NY Slip Op 01235, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA ON GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES)/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA ON GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES)

,

OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a two-judge dissent, determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed in evidence as a potential adoptive admission a recorded phone call between the defendant and the victim. The phone call was recorded by the jail when defendant was incarcerated. Defendant’s silence and evasiveness when the victim told him he had broken her ribs was the essence of the potential adoptive admission. The jury was instructed that defendant’s silence and evasiveness could be considered by them, but it was up to them to determine whether the silence and evasiveness was an admission:

Here, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law when it made the threshold determination that defendant heard and understood the victim’s accusations against him. The court properly concluded that the content of the conversation, itself, demonstrates that defendant both heard and understood what she was saying, but chose to give evasive and manipulative responses. This view is supported by the context of the call, where, in a domestic violence case, defendant voluntarily contacted the victim in violation of an order of protection in an attempt to influence her to drop the charges against him. Once this foundation was established, it was proper for the call “to be placed before the jury so that the jury might weigh the import, along with its other instructions and responsibilities” … . People v Vining, 2017 NY Slip Op 01144, CtApp 2-14-17

CRIMINAL LAW (OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION)/ADOPTIVE ADMISSION (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION)/ADMISSION (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION)/SILENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ADOPTIVE ADMISSION, OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION)

,

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined defendant’s argument that three consecutive 25-year sentences arising from the same incident constituted cruel and unusual punishment was not preserved for review:

Defendant failed to preserve for review his claim that the sentence imposed by the court was “cruel and unusual.” Although defendant generally objected to the length of the sentence before the sentencing court, arguing that the sentence was draconian, he did not alert the court to his constitutional argument. Thus, the sentencing court was never given an opportunity to address any of the constitutional challenges that defendant now lodges with this Court. Accordingly, defendant’s “claim [ ] that his sentence constituted cruel and inhuman punishment [ ] is not properly before us” … . People v Pena, 2017 NY Slip Op 01142, CtApp 2-14-17

CRIMINAL LAW (CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW)/CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW)

PLEA TO HINDERING PROSECUTION FOR PROVIDING AND HIDING WEAPON STANDS, DESPITE ACQUITTAL OF THE SHOOTER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the defendant’s plea to hindering prosecution should stand, in spite of the acquittal in the murder prosecution of the codefendant whose weapon defendant provided and subsequently hid:

Defendant … challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to one count of hindering prosecution in the second degree … . The courts below properly rejected defendant’s claims that his plea is constitutionally infirm and that his codefendant’s acquittal of the underlying felony renders defendant innocent. Neither claim is supported by existing precedent, and his innocence theory is counter to this Court’s holdings in People v Chico (90 NY2d 585 [1997]), People v O’Toole (22 NY3d 335 [2013]), and People v Berkowitz (50 NY2d 333 [1980]). * * *

The logical basis for rejecting defendant’s proposed rule — an assisted person’s acquittal forecloses any finding of a defendant’s criminal liability for hindering prosecution — is rooted in the nature of the crime itself. The intended goal of hindering prosecution is the assisted person’s evasion of criminal liability for the underlying felony. The more effective a defendant’s attempts to obstruct law enforcement, the more likely the assisted person will escape prosecution or be acquitted. Defendant’s rule would have the perverse result of treating as innocent a defendant who stymies an investigation, hides evidence — as in this case — or otherwise sabotages the prosecution, because those efforts lead to the assisted person’s acquittal. People v Fisher, 2017 NY Slip Op 01143, CtApp 2-14-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PLEA TO HINDERING PROSECUTION FOR PROVIDING AND HIDING WEAPON STANDS, DESPITE ACQUITTAL OF THE SHOOTER)/HINDERING PROSECUTION (PLEA TO HINDERING PROSECUTION FOR PROVIDING AND HIDING WEAPON STANDS, DESPITE ACQUITTAL OF THE SHOOTER)

NO PRETRIAL NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the identification testimony of a police officer should not have been admitted because pretrial notice of the identification had not been provided to the defendant:

We agree with defendant … that the court erred in permitting the officer to identify defendant as the person in the left rear seat of the vehicle in the absence of a notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b). We therefore reverse the judgment and grant that part of the omnibus motion seeking preclusion of that testimony on the ground that the People failed to serve a notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b). The prosecutor advised the court and defense counsel after jury selection that the officer would identify defendant as the left rear passenger. Defendant objected and the court conducted a hearing, over defendant’s objection, and determined that the officer’s identification of defendant by means of a single photo approximately two hours after the incident was merely confirmatory and thus that no notice was required pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b).

The exception to the requirement to provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 “carries significant consequences” … , and the Court of Appeals has “consistently held that police identifications do not enjoy any exemption from the statutory notice and hearing requirements” … . Unlike the buy-and-bust scenario, where the police participant is focused on the face-to-face contact with defendant with the goal of identifying him or her when he or she is picked up by a back up unit … , here, the officer was standing by the vehicle for approximately three minutes while he was engaged with all of the occupants of the vehicle. Thus, “we cannot conclude that the circumstances of [the officer’s] initial viewing were such that, as a matter of law, the subsequent identification could not have been the product of undue suggestiveness” … . Indeed, “the statute contemplates pretrial resolution of the admissibility of identification testimony’ ” … , and “[t]o conclude otherwise directly contravenes the simple procedure that has been mandated by the Legislature and would permit the People to avoid their statutory obligation merely because a police officer’s initial viewing of a suspect and a subsequent identification might be temporally related” … . People v Clay, 2017 NY Slip Op 01074, 4th Dept 2-10-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NO PRETRIAL NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTON REVERSED)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO PRETRIAL NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTON REVERSED)

,

AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER THE MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS DENIED; PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION.

The Fourth Department determined defendant was entitled to the opportunity to present a defense after the motion for a trial order of dismissal was denied:

When the appeal was previously before us, we held the case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to County Court for a ruling on the motion for a trial order of dismissal “following such further proceedings as may be necessary” … . Upon remittal, the court … denied the motion … . … [T]he court did not afford defendant the opportunity to present a defense, notwithstanding that defendant had not rested and the proof was not closed. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the fact that we did not set aside its premature verdict [the motion for a trial order of dismissal had not been ruled on] when the appeal was previously before us did not preclude it from considering further proof or making new factual determinations … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to present a defense. People v White, 2017 NY Slip Op 01058, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER THE MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS DENIED, PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION)/TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, MOTION FOR AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DENIED, PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER THE MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS DENIED, PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION)

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