You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

ERROR TO ALLOW PROSECUTOR TO IMPEACH HER OWN WITNESS WITH THE WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, EVIDENTIARY ERRORS COUPLED WITH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Second Department determined the allowing the prosecutor to impeach her own witness with the witness’s grand jury testimony, allowing inadmissible hearsay, together with the prosecutor’s improper remarks in summation, required reversal in the interest of justIce:

… [A] new trial is warranted as a result of two evidentiary errors, both of which were compounded by improper remarks made during the People’s summation. Specifically, the Supreme Court allowed the prosecutor to impeach one of her own witnesses, who testified at trial that it was dark at the time of the shooting and she “couldn’t really see” the shooter. The prosecutor was permitted to read that witness’s prior grand jury testimony, in which she stated that she recognized the shooter as a person going by the nickname of E-Villain. This was error … . Moreover, during summation, the prosecutor compounded the error by improperly using the prior inconsistent statement as evidence in chief … , telling the jury that when that witness previously spoke to the police, to an assistant district attorney, and to the grand jury, “on each of those occasions, she said what it is she saw and who it is that she saw do it,” and urging the jury to find “she was not telling you the truth when she said that I now am telling you I did not see who did it, that it was too dark.” Later, the prosecutor went one step further, stating, in direct contradiction to the witness’s trial testimony, that “[she] saw who it was.”

The Supreme Court also erred in allowing another witness to testify that a “little girl said that [the defendant] shot [the victim]” … . Moreover, on summation, the prosecutor not only repeated the improper hearsay testimony but also mispresented the defendant as having told one of the witnesses, “You know what, that little girl that told you that was a hundred percent right.” People v Thomas, 2016 NY Slip Op 06851, 2nd Dept 10-19-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENTIARY ERRORS COUPLED WITH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S IMPEACHMENT OF PEOPLE’S WITNESS WITH GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL)/APPEALS (EVIDENTIARY ERRORS COUPLED WITH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/GRAND JURY (PROSECUTOR’S IMPEACHMENT OF PEOPLE’S WITNESS WITH GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL)/IMPEACHMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S IMPEACHMENT OF PEOPLE’S WITNESS WITH GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, (EVIDENTIARY ERRORS COUPLED WITH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)

,

POLICE OFFICER HAD AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON FOR APPROACHING DEFENDANT IN HER CAR, EVIDENCE OF DWI SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined evidence of defendant’s intoxication should not have been suppressed. The arresting officer approached defendant’s car because she was stopped for some time behind a police cruiser which was blocking the turning lane. The Second Department ruled that the officer did not need a suspicion of criminal activity to approach the defendant and ask for her license, insurance card and registration. In the course of interacting with the defendant, the officer noticed signs of intoxication:

Based on the testimony adduced at the suppression hearing, the officer had an objective, credible reason for approaching the defendant’s vehicle and asking for her license, registration, and insurance card. The defendant’s vehicle was oddly stopped in the left turning lane behind the officer’s vehicle, when it was obvious that she could not make a left turn. The defendant could have easily proceeded north on Oceanside Road, but instead stopped her vehicle for several minutes behind the officer’s vehicle. Under these circumstances, the officer had an objective, credible reason to approach the defendant’s vehicle and request information … . People v Karagoz, 2016 NY Slip Op 06842, 2nd Dept 10-19-16

 CRIMINAL LAW (POLICE OFFICER HAD AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON FOR APPROACHING DEFENDANT IN HER CAR, EVIDENCE OF DWI SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE OFFICER HAD AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON FOR APPROACHING DEFENDANT IN HER CAR, EVIDENCE OF DWI SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/STREET STOPS (POLICE OFFICER HAD AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON FOR APPROACHING DEFENDANT IN HER CAR, EVIDENCE OF DWI SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESSION (STREET STOP, POLICE OFFICER HAD AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON FOR APPROACHING DEFENDANT IN HER CAR, EVIDENCE OF DWI SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

SENDING THE VERDICT SHEET BACK TO THE JURY WITH A MESSAGE CONVEYED BY A COURT OFFICER, IN THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE, REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court committed reversible error when it, in the absence of defendant, received the verdict sheet from the jury indicating an impasse on two counts and sent the verdict sheet back to the jury with a message, conveyed by a court officer, to indicate what the jury’s issues were:

This message communicated to the jury that the court was rejecting the verdict and was, in effect, instructing the jury to continue deliberations. Indeed, approximately 10 minutes later, the jury sent a note indicating that it had reached a verdict on one of the two counts upon which the jury had earlier been unable to reach a verdict. An instruction to continue deliberations when the jury has indicated an inability to reach a verdict is not a mere “ministerial” matter … . Thus, the defendant was absent during a material stage of the trial, and the trial court improperly delegated a judicial duty to a nonjudicial staff member … . People v Gray, 2016 NY Slip Op 06839, 2nd Dept 10-19-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SENDING THE VERDICT SHEET BACK TO THE JURY WITH A MESSAGE CONVEYED BY A COURT OFFICER, IN THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE, REQUIRED REVERSAL)/JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, SENDING THE VERDICT SHEET BACK TO THE JURY WITH A MESSAGE CONVEYED BY A COURT OFFICER, IN THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE, REQUIRED REVERSAL)/ABSENCE OF DEFENDANT (CRIMINAL LAW, SENDING THE VERDICT SHEET BACK TO THE JURY WITH A MESSAGE CONVEYED BY A COURT OFFICER, IN THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE, REQUIRED REVERSAL)/COURT OFFICERS (CRIMINAL LAW, SENDING THE VERDICT SHEET BACK TO THE JURY WITH A MESSAGE CONVEYED BY A COURT OFFICER, IN THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE, REQUIRED REVERSAL)

,

DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED.

The First Department, reversing the defendants’ fraud-related convictions, determined (1) the defense did not “open the door” to the admission of hearsay evidence that a nontestifying codefendant (Solomon) pled guilty in a related matter, and (2) the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule were not met:

… [T]he inquiry whether a defendant opened the door to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence “is twofold — whether and to what extent, the evidence or argument said to open the door is incomplete and misleading, and what if any otherwise inadmissible evidence is reasonably necessary to correct the misleading impression” … .  * * *

A party seeking to introduce evidence under the exception must demonstrate that “each participant in the chain producing the record, from the initial declarant to the final entrant, [was] acting within the course of regular business conduct” when the record was made … . We find that although bank personnel were acting under a business duty when the record was created, the record fails to demonstrate that Solomon was acting under such a duty when he supplied the information at issue. People v Schlesinger Elec. Contrs., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 06742, 1st Dept 10-13-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/OPEN THE DOOR (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)

, ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant sufficiently alleged he was misinformed about the deportation consequences of his guilty plea and he would not have pled guilty if he had known of those consequences:

Here, the defendant alleged in an affidavit that his attorney advised him that there would be no immigration consequences to his plea of guilty if he was sentenced to not more than one year in jail, and that immigration authorities would not seek him out in Massachusetts, where he resided, since his case was in New York. * * * … [A]lthough the defendant’s claim of misadvice was based solely on his own sworn allegations, the defendant explained his failure to submit an affirmation from his former attorney and it is unlikely, as the People suggest, that there were witnesses to counsel’s provision of confidential advice or any documents created reflecting the content of that advice * * *

… [T]he defendant averred that he had been a lawful permanent resident for 24 years, that he had a 7-year-old son, that his parents and four siblings all lived in the United States, and that he was employed at the same job for 10 years. Further, if sentenced as a first felony drug offender, as he was in connection with his plea of guilty, the defendant’s sentencing exposure was a maximum of 5½ years of imprisonment (see Penal Law § 70.70[2][a][ii]). In light of these circumstances, there is a question of fact as to whether it is reasonably probable that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty had he been correctly advised as to the deportation consequences of the plea … . People v Roberts, 2016 NY Slip Op 06729, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES)/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES)/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES)

PENNSYLVANIA BURGLARY CONVICTION CANNOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK.

The Second Department determined a Pennsylvania burglary conviction could not serve as a predicate felony in New York because of the absence of the “knowingly” element:

… [T]here is no element in the Pennsylvania statute comparable to the element in the analogous New York statute that an intruder “knowingly” enter or remain unlawfully in the premises (Penal Law § 140.20). The absence of this scienter requirement from the Pennsylvania burglary statute renders improper the use of the Pennsylvania burglary conviction as the basis of the defendant’s predicate felony adjudication … . People v Flores, 2016 NY Slip Op 06723, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PENNSYLVANIA BURGLARY CONVICTION CANNOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)/PREDICATE FELONY (PENNSYLVANIA BURGLARY CONVICTION CANNOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (PENNSYLVANIA BURGLARY CONVICTION CANNOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)

,

CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s sexual abuse conviction, which was based solely on defendant’s confession, was against the weight of the evidence:

CPL 60.50 requires corroboration of such a confession: “A person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed.” Here, there is no such corroboration. The People assert that defendant’s confession “was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the child victim and her numerous hearsay disclosures solicited by the defense.” The record does not support that assertion, however, inasmuch as the victim never testified that she touched defendant’s penis with her hand, and there is no other evidence—hearsay or otherwise—independent of defendant’s confession to support defendant’s conviction of sexual abuse. Although it is well settled that “additional proof need not corroborate every detail of the confession,’ ” we conclude that defendant’s conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree was “based solely on [defendant’s] uncorroborated [confession]” … . Since there was “no corroborating proof of whatever weight,’ [count two of the indictment] must be dismissed” … . People v Maynard, 2016 NY Slip Op 06573, 4th Dept 10-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/CONFESSIONS (CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct to which defense counsel did not object. The prosecutor grossly exaggerated the nature and importance of DNA evidence found on a weapon. Defense counsel’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance:

At trial, the People presented testimony of a forensic expert to discuss DNA evidence collected from the gun, but the testimony was not conclusive. The expert testified that she analyzed the DNA mixture and determined that defendant was among 1 in 15 Americans who could not be excluded as a contributor. Nevertheless, on summation, the prosecutor grossly exaggerated the DNA evidence as “overwhelming” proof establishing defendant’s “guilt beyond all doubt” and posited: “If the defendant had not possessed the gun, wouldn’t science have excluded him?” In our view, the prosecutor’s flagrant distortion of the DNA evidence caused defendant such substantial prejudice that he was denied due process of law, particularly in light of the circumstantial nature of the People’s case … . In light of the foregoing, we agree with defendant’s related contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel owing to defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s misconduct during summation … . People v Rozier, 2016 NY Slip Op 06577, 4th Dept 10-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)

,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS.

The Fourth Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to vacate her conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. Defendant testified her husband’s neck was cut in a struggle for the knife her husband had used to attack her. The People apparently argued defendant’s wounds were self-inflicted. There was evidence of a wound behind defendant’s left armpit which could not have been self-inflicted. The Fourth Department held that defense counsel’s failure to show the jury the wound, failure to engage an expert concerning the wound, failure to examine defendant’s clothing and failure to show the clothing to the jury could amount to ineffective assistance of counsel because such evidence would demonstrate the wound behind the armpit was not surgical in origin (as was argued at trial). A hearing, therefore, should have been held:

Defendant … submitted an affirmation from her appellate counsel, who examined the shirts and asserted that, contrary to the testimony of the … prosecution witness, the holes in the shirts matched precisely the location of defendant’s alleged stab wound behind her left armpit. At oral argument of the motion, appellate counsel urged the court to examine the garments before ruling on the motion. The court declined to do so and denied defendant’s motion without a hearing.

We conclude that, if, as appellate counsel asserts, there are holes in the shirts defendant was wearing at the time of the altercation matching the wound behind her left armpit, in the absence of some strategic explanation, the failure of defendant’s trial attorney to examine that clothing, coupled with his failure to call a medical expert to discuss the wound and to show the wound to the jury, would have been so ” egregious and prejudicial’ ” as to deprive defendant of a fair trial … . Because defendant’s “submissions [thus] tend[ ] to substantiate all the essential facts’ necessary to support [her] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel” … , we conclude that the court should have held a hearing on the motion … . People v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op 06565, 4th Dept 10-7-16

 

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION,DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS)

STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRAND JURY PRESENTATION STRICTLY CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED, CONVICTION REVERSED FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE PRESENTATION.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the People’s notice to defendant about the time and place the grand jury presentation would take place was deficient. The prosecutor told defense counsel the presentation would take place the next day:

Here, we conclude that, after receiving defendant’s March 1, 2013 request to appear before the grand jury, the People did not provide defendant with notice “of the time and place of the grand jury presentation” … , as is required by CPL 190.50 (5) (b), and we therefore reverse. We note that, on March 25, 2013, the People sent a letter to defense counsel stating that, “during the week of April 8, 2013, the Erie County Grand Jury will hear testimony concerning this matter. In accordance with CPL 190.50, should your client wish to testify, please clearly state so, in writing, no later than April 5, 2013, so that I can make the necessary arrangements to receive his testimony.” Although that letter would have been sufficient to satisfy the initial and separate requirement set forth in CPL 190.50 (5) (a) that the People notify defendant of his right to appear before the grand jury … , the letter did not satisfy the requirements of CPL 190.50 (5) (b) to inform defendant of the time and place of the grand jury presentation, which were triggered by defendant’s March 1, 2013 request to appear before the grand jury. It is of no moment that defendant did not respond to the People’s letter because nothing in CPL 190.50 requires a defendant to resubmit a valid notice pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a) when he has already done so. We further note that the prosecutor’s oral statement to defense counsel on April 10, 2013 that “he will be presenting the matter to the Erie County Grand Jury the next day” was insufficient to satisfy the notice requirement inasmuch as it did not provide defendant with the requisite notice of the time and place of the grand jury presentation … . People v Moss, 2016 NY Slip Op 06587, 4th Dept 10-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRAND JURY PRESENTATION STRICTLY CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED, CONVICTION REVERSED FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE PRESENTATION)/GRAND JURY (STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRAND JURY PRESENTATION STRICTLY CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED, CONVICTION REVERSED FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE PRESENTATION)

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