You are here: / Criminal Law
, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NONHEARSAY EVIDENCE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSAILANT, IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DISMISS THE PETITION WITH PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, agreed the hearsay evidence identifying respondent as the assailant was not sufficient to support the juvenile delinquency petition, the petition should not have been dismissed with prejudice:

… Family Court abused its discretion in dismissing the petition with prejudice. “Where a petition is dismissed as jurisdictionally defective, dismissal is generally without prejudice, and the presentment agency’s proper recourse is to refile the petition” … . The court indicated that the error here was “egregious” because there were no nonhearsay allegations identifying respondent as the individual who committed the charged crime, and that this error could not be remedied by allowing for petitioner to refile. Although this error could not have been remedied by amendment of the petition (see Family Ct Act § 311.5 [2] [b]), it could have been remedied by refiling. Specifically, upon refiling there could be clarification from the deputy as to the specifics of the investigation including, as is relevant here, how the video of the incident was acquired and what that video depicted, based upon the deputy’s personal knowledge after review of the video. This is not a case where the presenting agency will necessarily be unable to establish respondent’s identity … and, therefore, the petition should have been dismissed without prejudice to allow for refiling … . Matter of Savannah F., 2024 NY Slip Op 05860, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: There was no nonhearsay proof the respondent was the assailant in this juvenile delinquency proceeding. But the petition should not have been dismissed with prejudice because the presenting agency may be able to provide sufficient proof of the identity of the assailant upon refiling.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS SUPPRESSED ON APPEAL, BUT THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT HELD THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT’S HARMLESS-ERROR FINDING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the Fourth Department should not have concluded the failure to suppress defendant’s statement was harmless error. Defendant pled guilty with the intention of appealing the denial of his suppression motion:

… [T]he Appellate Division held that defendant’s statement should have been suppressed, but that, because the gun would still have been admissible at trial, the error was harmless as there was no reasonable possibility that it contributed to defendant’s decision to plead guilty. On this record, however, we cannot say with certainty that the erroneous ruling played no part in that decision, and therefore we reverse. * * *

The record here is ambiguous at best as to defendant’s motivation in pleading guilty. Although defendant asserted during the plea colloquy that he was “pleading guilty because it’s a good deal,” he may only have believed that “in the face of all the evidence” admissible at the time, including his highly incriminating post-arrest statement “you saw what I had on me” … . Moreover, when entering his plea, defendant affirmatively sought assurances from the court that he could appeal the suppression determination, indicating the importance he placed on that adverse ruling …. . The People’s argument that defendant may only have been concerned with the court’s suppression of the physical evidence is speculative and insufficient to overcome the high bar for establishing defendant’s independent motivation for the plea. On this record, we cannot say that defendant’s decision to plead guilty was unaffected by the court’s erroneous suppression ruling, and therefore his guilty plea must be vacated. People v Robles, 2024 NY Slip Op 05819, CtApp 11-21-24

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the difficulty in applying a harmless-error analysis to a guilty plea.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE TO THE MURDER CHARGE; THAT FAILURE ALSO MAY HAVE TAINTED THE CRIMINAL-POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CONVICTION, WHICH REQUIRES THE INTENT TO USE THE WEAPON UNLAWFULLY (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s murder and criminal possession of a weapon convictions, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on the justification defense. The victim threatened defendant with a razor just before shooting. The Court of Appeals noted that if the shooting was justified the “intent to use the weapon unlawfully” element of criminal possession of a weapon may not have been proven:

Defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, requiring the People to prove that he possessed the gun with the intent to use it unlawfully against another person … . The model Criminal Jury Instruction provides that “a person acts with intent to use a loaded firearm unlawfully . . . when his . . . conscious . . . purpose is to use that loaded firearm unlawfully against another, and that intent need only exist at the very moment that a person engages in an unlawful use of the firearm against another” … . But if the jury in this case was properly instructed on justification, it might have concluded that defendant acted lawfully when he shot and killed the victim in self-defense. If so, then the jury might have also concluded that defendant lacked the requisite intent (to use unlawfully) for the possession charge … . In other words, it is possible the jury here relied solely on evidence of the potentially justified shooting in finding defendant guilty of possession of the weapon with the intent to use it unlawfully.

To be clear, a jury finding of justification as to the use of a firearm does not preclude that jury from finding that the defendant nevertheless possessed the weapon with intent to use it unlawfully … . But with respect to the possessory offense, the jury must be instructed that, while justification is not a defense to that crime, in the event the jury finds that the shooting was justified, that lawful use of the weapon cannot be considered as proof of the unlawful intent element of the possession charge. For example, the jury’s intent determination may rest on defendant’s conduct “during the continuum of time that he possessed it prior to the shooting” … . People v Castillo, 2024 NY Slip Op 05817, CtApp 11-21-24

Practice Point: If a defendant is charged with murder and criminal possession of a weapon and is entitled to a jury instruction on the the justification defense, the jury should be instructed that it cannot find the defendant possessed the weapon with the intent to use it unlawfully solely on the basis of the shooting, if the shooting is deemed justified.

 

,

THE POLICE HAD TO “MANIPULATE” THE CHECKS TO DETERMINE THEY WERE FORGED; THEREFORE THE “PLAIN VIEW” EXCEPTION TO THE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT WAS NOT APPLICABLE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, suppressing evidence seized under the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement, held the police had to “manipulate” the checks which were in plain view to determine they were forged. Because the nature of the checks was not apparent until they were “manipulated,” the “plain view” exception was not applicable:

… [W]e conclude that the People did not meet their burden of establishing the third element of the plain view exception—i.e., that the incriminating nature of the seized items was immediately apparent. In making such a determination, we must consider whether “the facts available to the [police] officer would warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief . . . that [the] items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime” … . This is a probable cause standard—i.e., there need not be “certainty or near certainty” about the incriminating nature of the seized items … . That element is not satisfied, however, “where the object [to be seized] must be moved or manipulated before its illegality can be determined” … . Indeed, “[s]uch a search or seizure may not be upheld without proof that the [police] officer who moved or manipulated the object had probable cause to believe that the object was evidence or contraband at the time that it was moved or manipulated” … . Still, “[a] truly cursory inspection—one that involves merely looking at what is already exposed to view, without disturbing it—is not a search” … . People v Howard, 2024 NY Slip Op 05733, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here the fact the checks were forged was not apparent until the police “manipulated” them. Therefore the “plain view” exception to the search-warrant requirement was not applicable and the checks should have been suppressed.

 

PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE OR SHE WOULD HOLD THE REFUSAL TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined a prospective juror’s indication he or she would hold defendant’s refusal to testify against the defendant required excusal “for cause:”

Here, the prospective juror gave “some indication of bias” … by stating that he “[a]bsolutely” might hold it against defendant if defendant chose not to testify … .

Contrary to the court’s determination, the prospective juror did not “give unequivocal assurance that [he could] set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” … . Although CPL 270.20 (1) (b) “does not require any particular expurgatory oath or ‘talismanic’ words . . . , [a prospective] juror[ ] must clearly express that any prior experiences or opinions that reveal the potential for bias will not prevent [the prospective juror] from reaching an impartial verdict” … . “If there is any doubt about a prospective juror’s impartiality, [the] trial court[ ] should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have ‘replaced one impartial juror with another’ ” … . We conclude that the prospective juror’s act of nodding his head affirmatively after the court gave an instruction and posed a question to the entire jury panel was “insufficient to constitute such an unequivocal declaration” … . People v Cheese, 2024 NY Slip Op 05712, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here the prospective juror indicated bias requiring excusal for cause by indicating he or she would hold the refusal to testify against the defendant.

 

,

SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS, FINDING THAT THE PEOPLE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AT THE TIME THE PEOPLE INDICATED THEY WERE READY FOR TRIAL; THE DISMISSAL ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE PEOPLE SO THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER STARTED RUNNING RENDERING THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL TIMELY; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER “DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES” DOCUMENTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT POSSESS THOSE DOCUMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the People’s appeal was timely because defendant never served the order dismissing the indictment on them so the 30-day appeal period never started running, and (2) the People were not obligated to turn over Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) documents to comply with their discovery obligations because the People did not possess those documents:

The Court of Appeals has “interpreted CPL 460.10 (1) (a) ‘to require prevailing party service’—not just the handing out of an order by the court—’to commence the time for filing a notice of appeal’ ” … . Here, the record establishes that the People received a copy of the original order, but there is “no evidence that [defendant] ever served the order as required by CPL 460.10 (1) (a)” … . Inasmuch as the record fails to establish that defendant ever served the People with a copy of the original order, the People’s 30-day period to appeal never began to run and the People’s appeal is therefore timely … . * * *

… [A]ssuming … that the parole officer’s disciplinary records from DOCCS met the relevancy prong as being related to the subject matter of the case, we conclude that the People established that those records did not meet the possessory prong required to prompt their initial discovery obligation with respect thereto (see CPL 245.20 [1] …). “[F]or the purposes of discovery, DOCCS is not a ‘law enforcement’ agency” and is ” ‘outside of the legal or practical control of local prosecutors’ and, therefore, the People cannot be deemed to be in constructive possession of that which DOCCS possesses” … . People v Walker, 2024 NY Slip Op 05662, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: If the defendant wins a motion to dismiss the indictment, the defendant must serve the People with the dismissal order or the People’s 30-day appeal period does not start running.

Practice Point: The People do not violate their discovery obligations by failing to turn over documents which are in the possession of another agency, here the Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS).

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S BIPOLAR DIAGNOSIS AND A STATEMENT INDICATING HIS FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM SORA RISK-LEVEL TWO TO THREE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the People did not demonstrate that an upward departure from SORA risk-level two to three was warranted:

… [W]e conclude that the People failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is more likely to reoffend based on his bipolar diagnosis. The only evidence offered by the People at the SORA hearing was the report prepared by defendant’s expert, who opined that “impaired judgment is a common disability in Bipolar Disorder, as is impulsiveness.” The expert further opined that defendant’s “judgment was impaired by his disorder” when he committed the crimes, and that he “acted impulsively because of his then undiagnosed (and inadequately treated) illness.” The fact that defendant’s bipolar condition may have impaired his judgment and decreased his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior when he committed the qualifying offenses does not mean, ipso facto, that he is at a greater risk of reoffending in the future as a result of his bipolar condition. Defendant’s mental illness was undiagnosed and untreated when he committed the qualifying offenses, and there is no evidence in the record indicating a reluctance or inability on defendant’s part to follow treatment recommendations and take prescribed medications now that he has been properly diagnosed.

We further conclude that an upward departure was not warranted based on defendant’s post-offense statement to one of the victims. Although the statement in question may show, as the People asserted, that defendant failed to accept responsibility for his crimes, an offender’s failure to accept responsibility is taken into account under risk factor 12 on the risk assessment instrument. Thus, an upward departure cannot be granted based on defendant’s statement … . People v Cohen, 2024 NY Slip Op 05658, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here defendant’s bipolar diagnosis and a statement to the victim indicating his failure to take responsibility for the offense did not justify an upward department from SORA risk-level two to three. The evidence did not demonstrate the bipolar disorder increased the risk of reoffending and the statement was already taken into account under risk factor 12.

 

, , ,

THE NEW YORK STATUTE DESIGNATING DEFENDANT A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED IF THE CALIFORNIA OFFENSE UPON WHICH THE DESIGNATION IS BASED WAS NON-VIOLENT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA OFFENSE WAS VIOLENT OR NON-VIOLENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter to County Court, over a five-justice concurrence, determined County Court must rule on whether defendant’s California conviction involved a violent or a non-violent sexual offense. If the facts of the case indicate the California offense was non-violent, the New York statute which requires designation of the defendant as a sexually violent offender would be unconstitutional as applied:

Defendant appeals from an order insofar as it designated him a sexually violent offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Due to the designation, which is based on a felony conviction in California requiring defendant to register as a sex offender in that state, defendant is subject to lifetime registration as a sex offender in New York even though County Court determined that he is only a level one risk. The designation was made pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b) insofar as it defines a sexually violent offense as including a “conviction of a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred.” Although defendant concedes that he qualifies as a sexually violent offender under the foreign registration clause of § 168-a (3) (b), he contends that the provision is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution (US Const, 14th Amend, § 1), inasmuch as his out-of-state felony conviction was for a nonviolent offense. Defendant further contends that the foreign registration clause violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Federal Constitution … . * * *

If the felony of conviction, by virtue of its statutory elements … , involved sexually violent conduct, then the foreign registration clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b) is not unconstitutional as applied to defendant inasmuch as he committed a violent sex offense even if it does not include all of the essential elements of one of the sexually violent offenses in New York enumerated in Correction Law § 168-a (3) (a). If, however, defendant was convicted of an out-of-state felony that is nonviolent in nature, we would conclude that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to defendant … . People v Grzegorzewski, 2024 NY Slip Op 05657, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: The statute which requires defendant be designated a sexually violent offender based upon an out-of-state conviction is unconstitutional as applied if the out-of-state offense was non-violent.

 

,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION, WHICH WAS NOT MENTIONED IN DEFENDANT’S COOPERATION AGREEMENT, WITHOUT FIRST GIVING DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have made restitution part of defendant’s sentence without giving the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea or accept the enhanced sentence:

​”[A] sentencing court may not impose a more severe sentence than one bargained for without providing the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea” … . The People concede that the payment of restitution was not part of the cooperation/plea agreement and that defendant should have been given the opportunity to either withdraw his plea or accept the enhanced sentence of restitution. Accordingly, we must remit the matter to County Court to either impose the agreed-upon sentence or give defendant the option of withdrawing his plea before imposing the restitution … . People v Nolasco-Gutierrez, 2024 NY Slip Op 05606, Third Dept 11-14-24

Practice Point: Here defendant pled guilty in accordance with a cooperation agreement which did not include restitution as part of the sentence. Imposing restitution without giving the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea required vacation of the restitution order.​

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S 2013 GUILTY PLEA WAS DEEMED DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE JUDGE FAILED TO ENSURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CHARGE; BECAUSE THE 2013 CONVICTION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OBTAINED, IT CANNOT BE A BASIS, IN 2020, FOR SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT PREDICATE FELON; SENTENCE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding the matter for resentencing, determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a persistent violent predicate felon based on a 2013 guilty plea because the plea to attempted burglary second was constitutionally invalid. In the plea allocution, defendant indicated he formulated the intent to steal after he entered the dwelling, prompting the need for further questioning by the judge. The intent to steal must be formulated before entry:

During the allocution on defendant’s 2013 plea to attempted burglary in the second degree, he asserted that, although he stole property from the subject dwelling, his intent at the time he unlawfully entered the premises was to tell its occupant to close the door. Because “the intent to commit a crime in the dwelling must be contemporaneous with the entry” under the burglary statute … , defendant’s statement that he formed the requisite intent “only after [he] had entered . . . the [premises] unlawfully” negated an element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty … . This statement triggered the court’s duty to make further inquiry in order to ensure that defendant understood “the nature of the charge and that the plea [was] intelligently entered” … . The court failed to do so. To the extent that the court conducted a further inquiry, its questions did no more than establish that defendant stole property once he was inside the dwelling, without refuting his statement that he had not intended to steal the property at the time of entry, nor did defendant confirm that he wished to waive a defense on that basis … . On this record, “we cannot conclude that defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made” … . Accordingly, since the requirements for enhanced sentencing have not been met, defendant’s sentence as a persistent violent felony offender must be vacated … . People v Stewart, 2024 NY Slip Op 05546, First Dept 11-12-24

Practice Point: Here it appears defense counsel demonstrated the 2013 guilty plea was unconstitutionally obtained because of an error by the sentencing judge during the allocution. Defense counsel then successfully argued the 2013 conviction could not be a basis for the 2020 sentencing of defendant as a persistent violent predicate felon. The current status of the 2013 conviction was not discussed.

 

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