You are here: / Criminal Law

JURY INSTRUCTION TO CONTINUE DELIBERATIONS AFTER A NON-UNANIMOUS VERDICT WAS NOT COERCIVE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined a jury instruction given after a jury verdict was found not to be unanimous was not coercive:

The supplemental instruction in this case, taken in context, was not coercive. In response to the jury’s representation that it had reached a “verdict” — when, in fact, the jury was not unanimous — the trial judge provided clarification that, in order to constitute a verdict, all jurors had to agree. Moreover, … the trial judge here stressed that the jurors should “attempt” to reach a verdict … , thereby leaving “open the possibility that the jurors would have principled disagreements that would prevent them from reaching a unanimous verdict” … . The court did not “overemphasize” the need to return a verdict or “suggest[] that the jurors were failing in their duty” by not doing so … . Nor did the court indicate that the jurors would be subject to “prolonged deliberations”… .

Contrary to defendant’s claim, the absence of “cautionary language” is not fatal to the supplemental charge. Just two hours before its supplemental instruction, the trial court provided an instruction containing ample cautionary language reminding the jury “not [to] surrender an honest view of the evidence.”  People v Morgan, 2016 NY Slip Op 08484, CtApp 12-20-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY INSTRUCTION TO CONTINUE DELIBERATION AFTER A NON-UNANIMOUS VERDICT WAS NOT COERCIVE)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY INSTRUCTION TO CONTINUE DELIBERATION AFTER A NON-UNANIMOUS VERDICT WAS NOT COERCIVE)

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROSECUTOR’S INITIAL STATEMENT OF READINESS FOR TRIAL WAS ILLUSORY CLARIFIED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a concurrence in two of the three cases and a dissent in the third, articulated the procedure for determining whether a prosecutor’s off-calendar statement of readiness for trial was illusory. An illusory statement of readiness would not stop the speedy trial clock. The issue arises when an initial statement of readiness is followed by an indication the People are not ready for trial:

In each of these appeals, defendants moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument on speedy trial grounds pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) arguing that the People’s off-calendar statements of readiness were illusory because the People were not ready for trial at the next court appearance. The common issue left open in People v Sibblies (22 NY3d 1174 [2014]) — is whether, in the event of a change in the People’s readiness status, the People or the defendant have the burden of showing that a previously filed off-calendar statement of readiness is illusory. We hold that such a statement is presumed truthful and accurate; a presumption that can be rebutted by a defendant’s demonstration that the People were not, in fact, ready at the time the statement was filed. If the People announce that they are not ready after having filed an off-calendar statement of readiness, and the defendant challenges such statement — at a calendar call, in a CPL 30.30 motion, or both — the People must establish a valid reason for their change in readiness status to ensure that a sufficient record is made for the court to determine whether the delay is excludable. The defendant then bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating, based on the People’s proffered reasons and other relevant circumstances, that the prior statement of readiness was illusory. People v Brown, 2016 NY Slip Op 08482, CtApp 12-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROSECUTOR’S INITIAL STATEMENT OF READINESS FOR TRIAL WAS ILLUSORY CLARIFIED)/SPEEDY TRIAL (PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROSECUTOR’S INITIAL STATEMENT OF READINESS FOR TRIAL WAS ILLUSORY CLARIFIED)/STATEMENT OF READINESS (CRIMINAL LAW, SPEEDY TRIAL, PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROSECUTOR’S INITIAL STATEMENT OF READINESS FOR TRIAL WAS ILLUSORY CLARIFIED)

,

FLAWED JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice because of flaws in the jury instructions. The court did not make clear that acquittal on the top count based upon the justification defense required acquittal on the other counts. Also the court’s charge on the use of excessive force was incomplete:

… [T]he court’s charge on the use of excessive force contained a significant omission. Even if a defendant is initially justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense, he or she may not continue to use deadly physical force after the assailant no longer poses a threat … . However, in such a situation the People must prove that it was the unnecessary additional force that caused the alleged harm … , which in this case was serious physical injury. The court’s charge on excessive force omitted the latter principle and thus impermissibly permitted the jury to convict defendant based upon a finding that although he was justified when he initially stabbed the complainant in the abdomen, defendant was not justified in inflicting subsequent wounds on the fleeing complainant, even if these additional wounds did not constitute serious physical injury. Although the parties dispute whether the additional wounds were serious, the jury could reasonably have concluded that they were not. It cannot be determined whether the jury found that defendant’s conduct was not justified because he was the initial aggressor or because, although not the initial aggressor, he subsequently used unnecessary physical force.  People v Delin, 2016 NY Slip Op 08465, 1st Dept 12-15-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FLAWED JURY INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/EVIDENCE (JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, JURY INSTRUCTION INCOMPLETE)/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (JURY INSTRUCTION INCOMPLETE)/EXCESSIVE FORCE (JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, JURY INSTRUCTION INCOMPLETE)

, ,

TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM.

The First Department, reversing Family Court’s juvenile delinquent adjudication, determined the testimony at the fact finding hearing about the identification procedure was so different from the description in the voluntary disclosure form [VDF] that the identification evidence should not have been admitted:

In a voluntary disclosure form [VDF], the presentment agency informed appellant that the complainant identified him inside a restaurant. Consistent with this notice, the arresting detective testified at the suppression hearing that he saw appellant and two companions, whom he had been following, enter the restaurant, that the complainant arrived at the scene, and that despite the officer’s instruction for the complainant to wait outside, the complainant entered the restaurant shortly after the detective did and there identified appellant. Based on this testimony, the court denied suppression, finding that the identification was a “spontaneous or un-arranged identification.” However, when the complainant ultimately testified at the fact-finding hearing, he testified that he never entered the restaurant, but rather that he identified appellant after the detective brought the three boys out of the restaurant and lined them up against a wall.

Although an inconsequential defect in a notice may be excused … , here the discrepancy between the two accounts of the identification was not inconsequential, but rather reflected that the VDF provided inadequate notice of the evidence the presentment agency intended to present at the fact-finding hearing … . Accordingly, the court should have granted appellant’s Family Ct Act § 330.2(2) motion to preclude identification evidence, which was made after the complainant testified regarding the identification procedure outside the restaurant. Matter of Deavan W., 2016 NY Slip Op 08469, 1st Dept 12-15-16

 

FAMILY LAW (TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM)/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY COURT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY COURT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM)/IDENTIFICATION (FAMILY COURT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM)

, ,

SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED.

The First Department affirmed defendant’s conviction because he pled guilty before the court ruled on his suppression motion. Suppression therefore could not be considered on appeal. However, the court determined there was no justification for a strip search and warrantless body-cavity search:

… [T]here is merit to defendant’s claim that the police lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search. The record showed only that defendant was arrested during a buy-and-bust operation in a drug-prone location. Defendant was not observed reaching into his pants and no drugs were found on his clothing. “The police officers’ generalized knowledge that drug sellers often keep drugs in their buttocks, and the fact that no drugs were found in a search of defendant’s clothing [a]re insufficient” … .

There is also merit to defendant’s claim that the strip and visual body cavity search were not conducted in a reasonable manner and without a warrant or exigent circumstances. The record shows that defendant had his clothing torn from his body and was searched in the presence of four or five officers, belying the imperative to seek out “utmost privacy, and in the presence of only those members of the service reasonably necessary to conduct the search” to “achieve a balance between the privacy and personal dignity concerns of the [arrestee],” as set forth in the provisions of the NYPD Patrol Guide (Procedure No. 208.5[C][4] [2013]) concerning strip search procedures. The violence of the search — which resulted in physical injury to defendant requiring transfer to the hospital — was unnecessary particularly given that defendant was not being charged with a violent offense.

Further, the record indicates that defendant was very likely subjected to a warrantless [*2]manual cavity search of his rectum … . Potential dissemination or destruction of drugs was not a concern where defendant was already in a secure cell with five officers watching him … . People v Durham, 2016 NY Slip Op 08438, 1st Dept 12-15-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED)/STRIP SEARCH (SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED)/BODY CAVITY SEARCH (SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND BODY CAVITY SEARCHES CRITICIZED)

DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding that defendant’s family was improperly excluded from the courtroom:

Defendant’s family members were improperly excluded from the closed courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer. It is undisputed that the evidence presented at a Hinton hearing did not demonstrate that the “exclusion of [defendant’s family members was] necessary to protect the interest advanced by the People in support of closure” … . The People ask us to interpret the record as indicating that the court did not, in fact, exclude defendant’s relatives. While the record arguably presents a degree of ambiguity in this regard, in that both the prosecutor, in the course of his argument about the officer’s efforts to conceal his identity, and the court, in discussing its decision, mentioned “the general public,” these ambiguous and equivocal indications are insufficient to persuade us that defendant’s family members were in fact allowed to be present.

The prosecutor requested that the courtroom be closed “entirely,” without making any specific provision for family members, and asserted that the closure requested was not “overly broad.” Defense counsel specifically asserted the right of the family members to be present. The court then granted the People’s application, making no specific allowance or arrangements for the family members to attend. Under these circumstances, we cannot fairly read the record to indicate that the presence of family members was permitted. People v Moore, 2016 NY Slip Op 08447, 1st Dept 12-15-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION REVERSED)/CLOSURE OF COURTROOM (DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION REVERSED)

,

THREE-YEAR-OLD SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIM’S STATEMENTS AND GESTURES, MADE WITHIN A HALF HOUR OF THE ABUSE, PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES.

The Court of Appeals determined the trial court did not err when it admitted the three-year-old victim’s statements (and gestures) made within half an hour of the sexual abuse as excited utterances. The same statements made at the hospital three hours later may not have been admissible as excited utterances, but any error in admitting them was deemed harmless:

We discern no error in the admission of the child’s initial statements to her mother and father as excited utterances. The evidence established that the child was in a highly emotional state when she first stepped off the bus and that she continued to cry inconsolably as she uttered the phrase “Señor Bus” to her mother and father at home and made a licking gesture with her tongue. Those statements were made within a half hour of the startling event, while the child was still under the stress of excitement, and therefore were properly admitted at trial … .

The child repeated the same phrase and gesture to her parents three hours later at a hospital and also pulled her mother’s hand to the child’s genital area. Even accepting defendant’s contention that the stress of excitement had sufficiently abated by the time the child made those later statements, any error in their admission was harmless … . Forensic testing confirmed the presence of defendant’s DNA in the child’s underwear, and the bus matron provided unrefuted testimony that defendant had altered his bus route in such a way that the child was alone with defendant for approximately thirty minutes on the day of the incident. Additionally, the child’s mother testified that the child ran into the house screaming and crying as soon as she got off the bus, and that the child’s underwear had been pulled down and were bunched up inside the leg of her pants. The emergency room doctor found redness and a sore on the child’s genital area that he believed were the result of external trauma, i.e., touching. People v Hernandez, 2016 NY Slip Op 08396, CtApp 12-15-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THREE-YEAR-OLD SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIM’S STATEMENTS AND GESTURES, MADE WITHIN A HALF HOUR OF THE ABUSE, PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, THREE-YEAR-OLD SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIM’S STATEMENTS AND GESTURES, MADE WITHIN A HALF HOUR OF THE ABUSE, PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, THREE-YEAR-OLD SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIM’S STATEMENTS AND GESTURES, MADE WITHIN A HALF HOUR OF THE ABUSE, PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)/EXCITED UTTERANCES (CRIMINAL LAW, THREE-YEAR-OLD SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIM’S STATEMENTS AND GESTURES, MADE WITHIN A HALF HOUR OF THE ABUSE, PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES)

, ,

NARROW EXCEPTIONS TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.

The Court of Appeals determined defendant’s failure to move to withdraw his plea or object precluded review:

Defendant’s challenges to the validity of his guilty plea are unpreserved and unreviewable by this Court. Defendant had “an opportunity to seek relief from the sentencing court” by moving to withdraw his plea based on his alleged justification defense, and therefore the “narrow exception to the preservation requirement” does not apply … . Defendant said nothing during the plea colloquy or the sentencing proceeding that negated an element of the crime or raised the possibility of a justification defense, and therefore People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) is inapplicable.

Defendant’s further contention that the court failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea is also unpreserved for appellate review. The court informed defendant during the plea colloquy that if he was not a citizen, he could face deportation as a result of his guilty plea. Defendant therefore was informed before he pleaded guilty of the possibility that he could be deported as a result of his plea, and if he was confused about that issue, he was obligated to move to withdraw his plea on that ground before the sentencing court … . People v Pastor, 2016 NY Slip Op 08399, CtApp 12-15-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NARROW EXCEPTIONS TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, NARROW EXCEPTIONS TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA)

, ,

DIRECT APPEAL CANNOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE APPELLANT’S INVOLUNTARY DEPORTATION.

The Court of Appeals determined defendant's direct appeal should not have been dismissed based upon defendant's deportation, even though there was no relationship between the matter on appeal and the deportation:

We recently … held “that [People v] Ventura [(17 NY3d 675 [2011])] prohibits intermediate appellate courts from dismissing pending direct appeals due to the defendant's involuntary deportation, regardless of the contentions raised by the defendant on appeal” … . We further explained that “[o]ur holding in Ventura did not depend upon any causal relationship between the defendant's conviction and deportation” … .

Here, the Appellate Term erred as a matter of law insofar as it granted the People's motion to dismiss defendant's direct appeal from his judgment of conviction because he was involuntarily deported. This error requires reversal. People v Morales, 2016 NY Slip Op 08397, CtApp 12-15-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DIRECT APPEAL CANNOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE APPELLANT'S INVOLUNTARY DEPORTATION)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DIRECT APPEAL CANNOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE APPELLANT'S INVOLUNTARY DEPORTATION)/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DIRECT APPEAL CANNOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE APPELLANT'S INVOLUNTARY DEPORTATION)

,

NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING, WAIVER BY COUNSEL NOT SUFFICIENT.

The Court of Appeals determined there was insufficient evidence demonstrating defendant waived his right to be present at his resentencing:

A defendant has the right to be present at all material stages of trial … , including sentencing (see CPL 380.40 [1]). We recently held that a defendant who has been convicted of a felony may waive his right to be present at sentencing, but must do so “expressly” … . The same principle applies in resentencing. The People do not contend otherwise, but insist that an inmate who wishes to waive his right to be present at resentencing should not be required to convey that waiver by personal appearance in court, and that defendant properly waived his right to be present by having his counsel speak on his behalf. Here, however, there is no record of any form of express waiver by defendant himself, whether oral or in writing, and, thus, the issue raised by the People is not presented. Nor in this case can waiver or forfeiture of the right to be present be inferred from defendant’s actions or inaction … . Accordingly, defendant did not validly waive his right to be present. People v Stewart, 2016 NY Slip Op 08398, CtApp 12-15-16

CRIMINAL LAW (NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING, WAIVER BY COUNSEL NOT SUFFICIENT)/SENTENCING (NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING, WAIVER BY COUNSEL NOT SUFFICIENT)/WAIVER (CRIMINAL LAW, NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING, WAIVER BY COUNSEL NOT SUFFICIENT)

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