You are here: / Criminal Law
,

SYRACUSE NOISE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MUSIC LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD 50 FEET FROM A PERSON’S CAR IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the Syracuse Noise Ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague and therefore defendant was properly stopped in his vehicle based upon a violation of the ordinance:

Syracuse Noise Ordinance section 40-16 (b) is sufficiently definite to put a person on notice that playing music which can be heard over 50 feet from such person’s car on a public road, in a manner that would annoy or disturb “a reasonable person of normal sensibilities” is forbidden conduct and the objective standard affords police sufficiently “clear standards [for] enforcement” … . People v Stephens, 2016 NY Slip Op 07819, CtApp 11-21-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SYRACUSE NOISE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MUSIC LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD 50 FEET FROM A PERSON’S CAR IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE)/NOISE ORDINANCE (SYRACUSE NOISE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MUSIC LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD 50 FEET FROM A PERSON’S CAR IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SYRACUSE NOISE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MUSIC LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD 50 FEET FROM A PERSON’S CAR IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE)/STREET STOPS (SYRACUSE NOISE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MUSIC LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD 50 FEET FROM A PERSON’S CAR IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE)

,

HEARSAY STATEMENT BY BYSTANDER WHO OBSERVED DEFENDANT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS A PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION.

The Court of Appeals determined a (hearsay) spontaneous statement made by a bystander to a police officer about defendant’s attempt to get into the back of a FedEx truck was properly admitted as a present sense impression:

We hold that the statement was properly admitted as a present sense impression. That exception to the hearsay rule allows the admission of “spontaneous descriptions of events made substantially contemporaneously with the observations . . . if the descriptions are sufficiently corroborated by other evidence” … . Here, the woman’s statement was made to the officer immediately after the event she described and before she had an opportunity for studied reflection. The officer’s own observations sufficiently corroborated her description to allow its admission at trial … . People v Jones, 2016 NY Slip Op 07820, CtApp 11-21-16

CRIMINAL LAW (HEARSAY STATEMENT BY BYSTANDER WHO OBSERVED DEFENDANT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS A PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, HEARSAY STATEMENT BY BYSTANDER WHO OBSERVED DEFENDANT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS A PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION)/HEARSAY (HEARSAY STATEMENT BY BYSTANDER WHO OBSERVED DEFENDANT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS A PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION)/PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION (HEARSAY STATEMENT BY BYSTANDER WHO OBSERVED DEFENDANT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS A PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION)

,

ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM DID NOT DIE FROM ASSAULT RELATED INJURIES, THE MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OPINION THE VICTIM WOULD NOT HAVE DIED FROM CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE HAD HE NOT BEEN ASSAULTED WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FELONY MURDER CONVICTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s felony murder conviction. The victim was found dead two days after an assault which fractured facial bones. The medical examiner testified the facial injuries were not the cause of death. But the medical examiner, noting the victim’s obesity and enlarged heart, offered an opinion that the victim would not have died from cardiovascular disease he not been assaulted:

Here, the medical examiner’s testimony, in conjunction with the crime scene evidence, established a sufficient causal connection between defendant’s infliction of blunt force trauma injuries during the violent home invasion and the victim’s death. Specifically, the medical examiner testified that “[s]tress of any kind can hasten a person’s demise by cardiovascular disease” and that, here, the stress caused by the injuries inflicted by defendant, “given [the victim’s] underlying heart disease[,] led to his death.” That testimony, along with the crime scene evidence that defendant’s beating of the victim was severe and immediate in its consequences, “was sufficient to prove that defendant’s conduct ‘set in motion and legally caused the death’ of” the victim … . Thus, the jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant’s conduct was an actual contributory cause of the victim’s death.

With respect to foreseeability of the death, the People must prove “that the ultimate harm is something which should have been foreseen as being reasonably related to the acts of the accused” … . In this case, defendant violently attacked the victim, in his home, breaking his jaw and leaving him on the floor in a blood-spattered room where he was found dead. From all of the evidence and the circumstances surrounding this violent encounter, the proof was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that the victim’s heart failure, induced by the extreme stress and trauma of such a violent assault, was a directly foreseeable consequence of defendant’s conduct … . People v Davis, 2016 NY Slip Op 07818, CtApp 11-21-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM DID NOT DIE FROM ASSAULT RELATED INJURIES, THE MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OPINION THE VICTIM WOULD NOT HAVE DIED FROM CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE HAD HE NOT BEEN ASSAULTED WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FELONY MURDER CONVICTION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM DID NOT DIE FROM ASSAULT RELATED INJURIES, THE MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OPINION THE VICTIM WOULD NOT HAVE DIED FROM CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE HAD HE NOT BEEN ASSAULTED WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FELONY MURDER CONVICTION)/FELONY MURDER (ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM DID NOT DIE FROM ASSAULT RELATED INJURIES, THE MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OPINION THE VICTIM WOULD NOT HAVE DIED FROM CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE HAD HE NOT BEEN ASSAULTED WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FELONY MURDER CONVICTION

TOWING OF DEFENDANT’S CAR (AND INVENTORY SEARCH) AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST FOR SHOPLIFTING WAS CONSISTENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT’S WRITTEN POLICY.

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined the police properly towed defendant’s car (which resulted in an inventory search) after defendant’s arrest for shoplifting. The towing of the car was consistent with the provisions of the police department’s written policy:

… [T]he police officers’ decision to tow defendant’s vehicle, which was parked in the same parking lot in which defendant was arrested, was properly made in accordance with “standard criteria” set forth in the police department’s written policy … . Those criteria, among other things, limit an officer’s discretion to tow a vehicle upon a driver’s arrest to situations in which such action is necessary to ensure the safety of the vehicle and its contents and where releasing the vehicle to an owner or designee is not otherwise appropriate. Upon defendant’s arrest, the vehicle would have been left unattended indefinitely in the complainant’s private parking lot, which had a history of vandalism, and the complainant requested that the police remove the vehicle. In our view, the officers’ decision to tow the vehicle was, therefore, consistent with a community caretaking function … . Moreover, there is no indication that the officers suspected that they would discover evidence of further criminal activity in defendant’s vehicle, or that they towed the vehicle for that purpose … . People v Tardi, 2016 NY Slip Op 07822, CtApp 11-21-16

CRIMINAL LAW (TOWING OF DEFENDANT’S CAR (AND INVENTORY SEARCH) AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST FOR SHOPLIFTING WAS CONSISTENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT’S WRITTEN POLICY)/INVENTORY SEARCH (TOWING OF DEFENDANT’S CAR (AND INVENTORY SEARCH) AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST FOR SHOPLIFTING WAS CONSISTENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT’S WRITTEN POLICY)/TOWING (TOWING OF DEFENDANT’S CAR (AND INVENTORY SEARCH) AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST FOR SHOPLIFTING WAS CONSISTENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT’S WRITTEN POLICY

ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS AND WHETHER HE WAS CARRYING DRUGS DEEMED INVASIVE QUESTIONING, SUPPRESSION GRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined asking defendant (who was on a bicycle and properly stopped) why he was so nervous and whether he was carrying drugs was invasive questioning unsupported by an indication of criminal activity. Suppression of defendant’s statements and seized evidence should have been granted:

… [F]ollowing the permissible stop of defendant on his bicycle, the officers improperly escalated the encounter to a level two common-law inquiry by asking defendant why he was so nervous and whether he was carrying drugs. The officers’ inquiries, which involved “invasive questioning” that was “focuse[d] on the possible criminality” of defendant … , were not supported by the requisite founded suspicion of criminality … . The testimony at the suppression hearing establishes that the officers observed nothing indicative of criminality, and we conclude that defendant’s nervousness upon being confronted by the police did not give rise to a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot … . Because defendant’s inculpatory oral response to the impermissible accusatory questioning resulted in the seizure of the drugs from defendant’s pocket and a postarrest written statement from defendant, the drugs and the oral and written statements must be suppressed … . People v Freeman, 2016 NY Slip Op 07784, 4th Dept 11-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS AND WHETHER HE WAS CARRYING DRUGS DEEMED INVASIVE QUESTIONING, SUPPRESSION GRANTED)/SUPPRESSION (ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS AND WHETHER HE WAS CARRYING DRUGS DEEMED INVASIVE QUESTIONING, SUPPRESSION GRANTED)/STREET STOPS (ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS AND WHETHER HE WAS CARRYING DRUGS DEEMED INVASIVE QUESTIONING, SUPPRESSION GRANTED)

ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS DEEMED A NONINCRIMINATING QUESTION, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED.

The Fourth Department determined the police officer’s asking defendant (a passenger in a car pulled over for a traffic infraction) why he was nervous was a nonincriminating question. Therefore defendant’s statement he had “a little bit of weed” and the results of a search were not subject to suppression:

We conclude that, after the stop, the officer was permitted to approach defendant as a passenger in the vehicle and ask nonincriminating questions … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, the officer’s question in response to defendant’s manifest nervousness did not “exceed[ ] a request for information and the question[ ] was neither invasive nor focused on possible criminality” … . Indeed, defendant’s admission that he possessed marihuana in response to the officer’s inquiry “went far beyond what the officer’s words could reasonably expect to evoke” … . People v Williams, 2016 NY Slip Op 07776, 4th Dept 11-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS DEEMED A NONINCRIMINATING QUESTION, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)/SUPPRESSION (ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS DEEMED A NONINCRIMINATING QUESTION, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)/STREET STOPS (ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS DEEMED AN NONINCRIMINATING QUESTION, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)

NOT ASKING A GRAND JURY TO CONSIDER A CHARGE FOR WHICH SOME EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED DID NOT AMOUNT TO WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGE (WHICH WOULD REQUIRE JUDICIAL PERMISSION TO RE-PRESENT).

The Fourth Department determined that not asking a grand jury to consider a charge is not the same as withdrawing a charge from the grand jury (which would require a judge’s permission to re-present):

… [T]he Court of Appeals has made clear that, ” [b]efore a grand jury may be said to have acted upon a charge, there must be some indication that it knew about it’ ” (Wilkins, 68 NY2d at 274). Moreover, “[t]here is no evidence in this record that would raise the primary concern of . . . Wilkins, namely that the People withdrew [the criminal sale charges] in order to present [them] to a more compliant grand jury” … . The People’s decision not to present the criminal sale charges for the consideration of the first grand jury is not ” fundamentally inconsistent with the objectives underlying CPL 190.75′ ” … , and we therefore conclude that this case does not present those ” limited circumstances’ ” to which the holding of Wilkins applies (id.). People v Lopez, 2016 NY Slip Op 07772, 4th Dept 11-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (NOT ASKING A GRAND JURY TO CONSIDER A CHARGE FOR WHICH SOME EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED DID NOT AMOUNT TO WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE JUDICIAL PERMISSION TO RE-PRESENT)/GRAND JURIES (NOT ASKING A GRAND JURY TO CONSIDER A CHARGE FOR WHICH SOME EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED DID NOT AMOUNT TO WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE JUDICIAL PERMISSION TO RE-PRESENT)

JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE AN INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF JUROR BIAS BASED UPON AN OBSERVATION DURING A RECESS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the trial judge should have inquired further into the allegation of juror bias. One of defendant’s friends told the court two jurors were overheard referring to defendant as a scumbag during a recess:

“If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, . . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case . . . the court must discharge such juror” (CPL 270.35 [1]). The standard for discharging a sworn juror is satisfied ” when it becomes obvious that a particular juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict’ ” … . There is a well-established framework by which the court must evaluate a sworn juror who, for one reason or another, may possess such a state of mind … .

To make a proper determination, the court “must question each allegedly unqualified juror individually in camera in the presence of the attorneys and defendant” (Buford, 69 NY2d at 299). “In a probing and tactful inquiry, the court should evaluate the nature of what the juror has seen, heard, or has acquired knowledge of, and assess its importance and its bearing on the case” (id.). During the inquiry, “the court should carefully consider the juror’s answers and demeanor to ascertain whether [his or] her state of mind will affect [his or] her deliberations” (id.). That accomplished, the court must place the reasons for its ruling on the record (see id.).

It has been emphasized repeatedly that ” each case must be evaluated on its unique facts’ ” … . To that end, the court must hold a Buford inquiry whenever there are facts indicating the possibility of juror bias, and must not base its ruling on speculation … . Not only does the court’s failure to hold an inquiry under such circumstances constitute reversible error, but its failure to place the reasons for its ruling on the record also constitutes reversible error … . Such errors are not subject to harmless error analysis … . People v Kuzdzal, 2016 NY Slip Op 07768, 4th Dept 11-18-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE AN INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF JUROR BIAS BASED UPON AN OBSERVATION DURING A RECESS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, JUROR BIAS, JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE AN INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF JUROR BIAS BASED UPON AN OBSERVATION DURING A RECESS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

,

STANDARD OF REVIEW IN COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT REQUIRED AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTION.

The Court of Appeals, affirming the denial of a suppression motion, explained the standard of review in the Court of Appeals for mixed questions of law and fact:

… [P]olice were dispatched … after an anonymous caller informed a 911 operator that two black males were walking back and forth … carrying silver colored guns on their waists. One individual was described as wearing a white t-shirt with red letters. The other was wearing a black t-shirt.

Two uniformed police officers, each driving a marked patrol car, responded to a radio dispatch concerning the 911 call. The first officer to arrive observed two black males walking side-by-side … . One male had a black t-shirt and the other male wore a two-toned blue jacket, over what appeared to the officer to be a light-colored t-shirt. The officer parked his vehicle and approached the men on foot. As soon as they saw the officer, one man fled into a backyard and the other man, defendant, continued to walk southbound … . The officer pursued the fleeing man with his gun drawn and observed the man hide what was later discovered to be a handgun underneath a pile of leaves.

When the second officer arrived at the scene, he observed the fleeing man run into the backyard with the first officer running after him and defendant walking … . No one else was in the area. As the second officer parked and exited his vehicle, defendant yelled an expletive and fled. The officer gave chase and observed a handgun fall from defendant’s waist.

The [Appellate Division] explained that defendant’s flight upon seeing the second officer exit his vehicle provided the officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to warrant his pursuit of defendant, and the fact that defendant dropped the gun during the pursuit gave rise to probable cause to arrest … .

The issue of whether the second officer had reasonable suspicion to pursue defendant is a mixed question of law and fact, limiting our review … . Because there is record support for the determination of the lower courts, we affirm … . People v Gayden, 2016 NY Slip Op 07702, CtApp 11-17-16

CRIMINAL LAW (STANDARD OF REVIEW IN COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT REQUIRED AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTION)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, STANDARD OF REVIEW IN COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT REQUIRED AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTION)/STREET STOPS (STANDARD OF REVIEW IN COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT REQUIRED AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTION)/SUPPRESS, MOTIONS TO (STANDARD OF REVIEW IN COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT REQUIRED AFFIRMANCE OF DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTION)

PAUCITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR HER ARREST WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING DESPITE THE CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

The First Department determined the conclusory allegations in defendant’s motion to suppress were sufficient, under the circumstances, to warrant a suppression hearing:

In People v Wynn (117 AD3d 487 [1st Dept 2014]), we held that the court erred in summarily denying the motion of defendant’s codefendant to suppress statements and physical evidence as the fruits of an unlawful arrest, notwithstanding the conclusory nature of the factual allegations in her suppression motion, where “[a]lthough the People provided defendant with extensive information about the facts of the crime and the proof to be offered at trial, they provided no information whatsoever, at any stage of the proceedings, about how defendant came to be a suspect, and the basis for her arrest, made hours after the crime at a different location” (id. at 487-488). Because the factual allegations in the People’s pleadings and relevant disclosures were materially the same in this case, we conclude that defendant’s motion to suppress, although it asserted nothing more than that probable cause was lacking, was sufficient under the circumstances to entitle him to a hearing. Unlike the situation in People v Lopez (5 NY3d 753, 754 [2005]), defendant’s statement did not “on its face show[] probable cause for defendant’s arrest.” People v Terry, 2016 NY Slip Op 07751, 1st Dept 11-17-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PAUCITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR HER ARREST WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING DESPITE THE CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (STATEMENTS, PAUCITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR HER ARREST WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING DESPITE THE CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS)

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