You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

GRAND-JUROR BIAS ISSUE IS FORFEITED BY A GUILTY PLEA; ERRONEOUS ADVICE RE APPEALABILITY OF THE ISSUE REQUIRED REMITTAL TO GIVE DEFENDANT OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.

The Third Department, over an extensive dissent, determined: (1) a claim of grand juror bias is forfeited by a guilty plea; and (2) erroneous advice from defense counsel indicating the issue was appealable the guilty plea provided defendant with a ground for moving to withdraw his plea:

Inasmuch as defendant’s misunderstanding as to his ability to appeal the juror bias issue was brought to County Court’s attention at sentencing, we find that defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea has been sufficiently preserved for our review … , notwithstanding the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion. Once County Court learned that defendant had been given erroneous advice by counsel, the court should have conducted a further inquiry to ascertain whether defendant wished to go forward with the plea … . Absent such inquiry by County Court, and in light of the fact that the record otherwise presents “a genuine issue of fact as to the knowing, intelligent and voluntary nature of defendant’s guilty plea” … , this matter must be remitted to County Court to afford defendant an opportunity to either accept the plea that was offered or move to withdraw his plea … . People v Clark, 2016 NY Slip Op 05831, 3rd Dept 8-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND-JUROR BIAS ISSUE IS FORFEITED BY A GUILTY PLEA; ERRONEOUS ADVICE RE APPEALABILITY OF THE ISSUE REQUIRED REMITTAL TO GIVE DEFENDANT OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, (GRAND-JUROR BIAS ISSUE IS FORFEITED BY A GUILTY PLEA; ERRONEOUS ADVICE RE APPEALABILITY OF THE ISSUE REQUIRED REMITTAL TO GIVE DEFENDANT OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, (GRAND-JUROR BIAS ISSUE IS FORFEITED BY A GUILTY PLEA; ERRONEOUS ADVICE RE APPEALABILITY OF THE ISSUE REQUIRED REMITTAL TO GIVE DEFENDANT OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA)

,

FAILURE TO PROHIBIT T-SHIRTS MEMORIALIZING THE VICTIM AND THREE UNPRESERVED INSTANCES OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WERE HARMLESS ERRORS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL.

The Second Department, after finding the court’s allowing the wearing of T-shirts memorializing the murder victim and three (unpreserved) instances of prosecutorial misconduct harmless individually, the cumulative effect of the “harmless” errors was deemed sufficient to reversed defendant’s conviction:

On the second day of trial, defense counsel advised the Supreme Court that “quite a few members of the deceased’s family are present in the court, they are all wearing T-shirts with his photograph on it, displayed in a fairly prominent position on the front of their T-shirts.” Defense counsel requested that the court instruct the spectators to remove the T-shirts or turn them inside out. After asking the members of the audience to stand up for a moment so as to view the T-shirts, the court stated that there was no basis to limit their right to wear items or make a statement since they had a First Amendment right to do so. The court also stated: “It should be noted that the Court, in viewing the audience, saw nothing outstanding other than T-shirts with some pictures and some words. One of the picture[s] may be of the [victim], I can’t tell from this distance. But, at any rate, that’s my ruling for the record, over counsel’s objection.” * * *

The prosecutor improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy by eliciting testimony from the victim’s mother that the victim’s wife was expecting a child and expressing sympathy for her loss … . * * *

That error was compounded when, during summation, the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy by commenting that when the victim left his house on the night in question, he had no idea that he was “never going to see his family again” and “never going to be able to see his girlfriend again,” and stating that it was a “tragedy” that his “24-year-old life was taken away by this man here (indicating), [the defendant]” … . The prosecutor committed misconduct of a different sort during summation when, while playing a surveillance video introduced into evidence at trial, she identified certain barely visible figures on the screen as the victim and the defendant. Throughout the course of these comments, the Supreme Court repeatedly instructed the jury that it alone should assess the video and not rely on the prosecutor’s comments, but the prosecutor persisted in her characterization of the figures on the screen.  People v Holiday, 2016 NY Slip Op 05816, 2nd Dept 8-17-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO PROHIBIT T-SHIRTS MEMORIALIZING THE VICTIM AND THREE UNPRESERVED INSTANCES OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WERE HARMLESS ERRORS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PROHIBIT T-SHIRTS MEMORIALIZING THE VICTIM AND THREE UNPRESERVED INSTANCES OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WERE HARMLESS ERRORS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (FAILURE TO PROHIBIT T-SHIRTS MEMORIALIZING THE VICTIM AND THREE UNPRESERVED INSTANCES OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WERE HARMLESS ERRORS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL)/HARMLESS ERROR (FAILURE TO PROHIBIT T-SHIRTS MEMORIALIZING THE VICTIM AND THREE UNPRESERVED INSTANCES OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WERE HARMLESS ERRORS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL)/CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL ERRORS (CRIMINAL LAW, (FAILURE TO PROHIBIT T-SHIRTS MEMORIALIZING THE VICTIM AND THREE UNPRESERVED INSTANCES OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WERE HARMLESS ERRORS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL)

JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS JURY NOTES BEFORE THE VERDICT NOT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENSE COUNSEL MAY HAVE HAD A STRATEGIC REASON FOR NOT OBJECTING, CONVICTION AFFIRMED AFTER COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL.

In a case reversed by the Court of Appeals and remitted, the Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, refused to exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction to address an unpreserved “jury note” error. The jury sent out two notes which the trial judge read into the record. But before the judge responded to the notes, the jury rendered a verdict. Defense counsel did not object to the failure to address the notes. The Fourth Department had reversed, finding the failure to respond to the notes a mode of proceedings error (not requiring preservation). The Court of Appeals reversed the Fourth Department, finding the error needed to be preserved:

… [T]he only remaining issue to be decided is whether we should exercise our power to review defendant’s unpreserved contention regarding the unanswered jury notes as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We decline to do so. As the Court of Appeals noted, defense counsel “may have made a strategic choice not to challenge the trial court’s procedure,” and “may have decided that the jurors were more likely to acquit defendant if they were not given the chance to deliberate further” … . Such a strategic decision, if made, would have been entirely reasonable considering that the jury had asked for, among other things, a readback of testimony from the key prosecution witness.

Because defense counsel may have had a legitimate, strategic reason for not objecting to the court’s procedure, we respectfully disagree with the dissent that defendant was “seriously prejudiced” by the court’s taking of the verdict. People v Mack, 2016 NY Slip Op 05825, 4th Dept 8-17-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS JURY NOTES BEFORE THE VERDICT NOT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION AFFIRMED AFTER COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL)/ATTORNEYS (JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS JURY NOTES BEFORE THE VERDICT NOT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ATTORNEY MAY HAVE HAD STRATEGIC REASON FOR NOT OBJECTING, CONVICTION AFFIRMED AFTER COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL)/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS JURY NOTES BEFORE THE VERDICT NOT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION AFFIRMED AFTER COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL)

,

JOINDER OF DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL WAS LAWFUL BUT, BECAUSE OF IRRECONCILABLE DEFENSES, JOINDER RESULTED IN DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant should not have been jointly tried with a co-defendant because of an irreconcilable conflict between his defense, and that of the co-defendant:

Where, as here, joinder is lawful, because the defendant and the codefendant were “jointly charged with every offense alleged” in their separate indictments, and “all the offenses charged [were] based upon the same criminal transaction” … , a defendant’s motion for a separate trial is “addressed to the discretion of the trial court, which may for good cause shown’ order severance. Good cause under the statute includes, but is not limited to, a finding that a defendant will be unduly prejudiced by a joint trial'” … . “[A] strong public policy favors joinder, because it expedites the judicial process, reduces court congestion, and avoids the necessity of recalling witnesses” … . However, “compromise of a defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial free of undue prejudice as the quid pro quo for the mere expeditious disposition of criminal cases will not be tolerated” … . ” [S]everance is compelled where the core of each defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other and where there is a significant danger, as both defenses are portrayed to the trial court, that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer defendant’s guilt'” … . People v Lessane, 2016 NY Slip Op 05765, 2nd Dept 8-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (JOINDER OF DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL WAS LAWFUL BUT, BECAUSE OF IRRECONCILABLE DEFENSES, JOINDER RESULTED IN DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JOINDER OF DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL WAS LAWFUL BUT, BECAUSE OF IRRECONCILABLE DEFENSES, JOINDER RESULTED IN DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL)/JOINDER (CRIMINAL LAW, JOINDER OF DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL WAS LAWFUL BUT, BECAUSE OF IRRECONCILABLE DEFENSES, JOINDER RESULTED IN DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL)

PAT-DOWN SEARCH AFTER VEHICLE STOP OKAY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, affirming the denial of defendant’s suppression motion, explained the analytical criteria for a pat-down search of defendant’s person after a vehicle stop:

“In light of the heightened dangers faced by investigating police officers during traffic stops, a police officer may, as a precautionary measure and without particularized suspicion, direct the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle to step out of the car” … . However, a police officer’s questions regarding whether an individual has a weapon is a common-law inquiry which must be supported by founded suspicion … . In addition, a pat-down search of a suspect’s outer clothing is reasonable and constitutionally permissible when an officer observes facts and circumstances that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person is armed or poses a threat to his or her safety … . Among the factors relevant to determining whether a pat-down search is justified are “the substance and reliability of the report that brought the officers to the scene, the nature of the crime that the police are investigating, the suspect’s behavior and the shape, size, and location of any bulges in the suspect’s clothing” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, including, among other things, the time of night, the fact that the livery cab in which the defendant was a passenger was speeding, the neighborhood, the officer’s observations of the defendant make what he interpreted as a furtive movement indicating that he was hiding something, the defendant’s refusal to answer questions or look at the officer in comparison to the other passenger’s animated responses, and the abnormal bulge in an unusual spot near the defendant’s groin, the officer was justified in inquiring about the bulge and performing the minimally intrusive measure of touching the bulge to verify that it was, in fact, a gun and not, as the defendant stated, cash … . People v Graves, 2016 NY Slip Op 05763, 2nd Dept 8-10-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PAT-DOWN SEARCH AFTER VEHICLE STOP OKAY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (PAT-DOWN SEARCH AFTER VEHICLE STOP OKAY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/VEHICLE STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, (PAT-DOWN SEARCH AFTER VEHICLE STOP OKAY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

,

DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS UPON SEEING THE POLICE IN A HOUSING AUTHORITY BUILDING FREQUENTED BY TRESPASSERS JUSTIFIED INITIAL QUESTIONING; REMAND OF PRIOR CONVICTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION DID NOT ALTER DATE OF THAT CONVICTION FOR PREDICATE-FELONY PURPOSES.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined: (1) the police were justified in following and questioning defendant who “retreated” into an elevator of a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building upon seeing the police; (2) the defendant’s refusal to tell the police whether he lived in the building and a bulge in defendant’s clothing justified pulling up defendant’s sleeve, which revealed the tip of a machete; (3) the show up identification by a recent robbery victim was proper; (4) and remanding a prior conviction for a youthful offender determination  did not affect use of the prior conviction as a predicate felony in the current proceeding. The depth of the discussion of these issues cannot be fairly summarized here. The fact that the NYCHA building was a high crime area and was frequented by trespassers was deemed to justify the initial approach by the police to determine if defendant lived in the building:

 

… [T]he building’s trespass history, together with defendant’s apparently panicked attempt to avoid contact with them upon their attempt to enter the elevator, gave the officers the right to inquire of defendant. * * *

… [D]efendant is entitled to vacatur of his sentence for the earlier assault conviction and to a resentencing that considers whether he qualifies for youthful offender status … . Nevertheless, defendant is not entitled to vacatur of the sentence for the robbery conviction. It is true that, for a prior conviction to serve as a predicate violent felony conviction, “[s]entence upon such prior conviction must have been imposed before commission of the present felony” … . However, we find that a remand for an adjudication of youthful offender status is, for purposes of determining such sequentiality, analogous to a remand for the imposition of postrelease supervision under People v Sparber (10 NY3d 457 [2008]). A Sparber resentencing has been held not to upset sequentiality for purposes of determining whether the conviction for which the remand was ordered can serve as a predicate for multiple felony offender status … . People v Perez, 2016 NY Slip Op 05730, 1st Dept 8-4-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS UPON SEEING THE POLICE IN A HOUSING AUTHORITY BUILDING FREQUENTED BY TRESPASSERS JUSTIFIED INITIAL QUESTIONING; REMAND OF PRIOR CONVICTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION DID NOT ALTER DATE OF THAT CONVICTION FOR PREDICATE-FELONY PURPOSES)/STREET STOPS (DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS UPON SEEING THE POLICE IN A HOUSING AUTHORITY BUILDING FREQUENTED BY TRESPASSERS JUSTIFIED INITIAL QUESTIONING)/SENTENCING (REMAND OF PRIOR CONVICTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION DID NOT ALTER DATE OF THAT CONVICTION FOR PREDICATE-FELONY PURPOSES)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS (REMAND OF PRIOR CONVICTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION DID NOT ALTER DATE OF THAT CONVICTION FOR PREDICATE-FELONY PURPOSES)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION (REMAND OF PRIOR CONVICTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION DID NOT ALTER DATE OF THAT CONVICTION FOR PREDICATE-FELONY PURPOSES)

PROTECTIVE SWEEP WHICH UNCOVERED METH LAB NOT JUSTIFIED; MIRANDIZED STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM IMPROPER QUESTIONING; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department determined meth-lab evidence and defendant’s Mirandized statements should have been suppressed. The police were called to an apartment and heard the sounds of a physical altercation inside. The police opened the unlocked door and separated the two men who were fighting. Defendant then came out the bathroom and was asked to sit down. The officers heard someone in the back bedroom which defendant rented. Defendant told the police his wife was in the back bedroom. The officers knocked on the locked bedroom door and defendant’s wife said she had to get dressed. She then came out of the bedroom into the living room. One of officers smelled a chemical odor in the back bedroom, went in, lifted up a shirt and found the meth lab equipment. The Third Department held that a protective sweep of the back bedroom was not justified (the concurrence disagreed). In addition the Third Department determined the People did not demonstrate defendant’s Mirandized statements were sufficiently attenuated from the improper questioning of the defendant at the apartment. With regard to the protective sweep, the court wrote:

… [T]he question is whether, on these facts, the officers were entitled to enter and look under clothing in defendant’s bedroom as part of a protective sweep, which “is a quick and limited search of premises . . . conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. It is narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding” … . Recognizing the dangers faced by police officers who enter homes, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that officers may, “as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched” … . Beyond that precautionary measure, the Court held that, to conduct a further protective sweep, “there must be articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene” … . People v Harris, 2016 NY Slip Op 05670, 3rd Dept 7-28-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROTECTIVE SWEEP WHICH UNCOVERED METH LAB NOT JUSTIFIED; MIRANDIZED STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM IMPROPER QUESTIONING; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUPPRESSION (PROTECTIVE SWEEP WHICH UNCOVERED METH LAB NOT JUSTIFIED; MIRANDIZED STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM IMPROPER QUESTIONING; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (PROTECTIVE SWEEP WHICH UNCOVERED METH LAB NOT JUSTIFIED; MIRANDIZED STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM IMPROPER QUESTIONING; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, MIRANDIZED STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENTUATED FROM IMPROPER QUESTIONING; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/ATTENUATION (CRIMINAL LAW, MIRANDIZED STATEMENTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM IMPROPER QUESTIONING; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

OKLAHOMA FIREARM STATUTE DOES NOT HAVE AN OPERABILITY ELEMENT AND CANNOT THEREFORE SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK.

The Third Department determined the Oklahoma statute prohibiting possession of a firearm could not be used as a predicate felony in New York. The Oklahoma statute does not have an operability element. In New York operability is a required element:

County Court erred in sentencing defendant as a second felony offender, as the elements of his predicate Oklahoma felony were not “equivalent to those of a New York felony” … . As relevant here, the inquiry regarding equivalency is “limited to a comparison of the crimes’ elements as they are respectively defined in the foreign and New York penal statutes” … . Defendant was previously convicted under an Oklahoma statute prohibiting possession of a firearm by a felon; however, operability is not a required element of the Oklahoma statute … . In New York “[o]perability is a required element of the crime of criminal possession of a handgun, rifle or shotgun” … . Thus, as the comparable New York statute requires an element that the Oklahoma crime does not, defendant’s Oklahoma conviction cannot support a finding that he was a second felony offender … . People v Gibson, 2016 NY Slip Op 05668, 3rd Dept 7-28-16

CRIMINAL LAW (OKLAHOMA FIREARM STATUTE DOES NOT HAVE AN OPERABILITY ELEMENT AND CANNOT THEREFORE SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)/PREDICATE FELONY (OKLAHOMA FIREARM STATUTE DOES NOT HAVE AN OPERABILITY ELEMENT AND CANNOT THEREFORE SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (OKLAHOMA FIREARM STATUTE DOES NOT HAVE AN OPERABILITY ELEMENT AND CANNOT THEREFORE SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, OKLAHOMA FIREARM STATUTE DOES NOT HAVE AN OPERABILITY ELEMENT AND CANNOT THEREFORE SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)

RELIANCE ON A JURISDICTIONAL THEORY AT TRIAL WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE JURISDICTION CRITERIA ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF FAIR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conspiracy conviction, determined the difference between the jurisdictional allegations in the indictment and the jurisdiction theory relied on at trial deprived defendant of fair notice of the charges against him:

Proof at trial that varies from an indictment may compromise the defendant’s right to fair notice of the charges and his or her right to have those charges determined by the grand jury … . Here, the indictment alleged jurisdiction in Kings County on the basis of overt acts committed in Kings County. However, the proof at trial did not support that theory and, as charged to the jury, jurisdiction in Kings County was based on conduct which had, or was likely to have, a particular effect upon Kings County pursuant to CPL 20.40(2)(c). As the evidence presented at trial varied from the indictment, and, contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant did not have fair notice of the jurisdictional theory presented to the jury, the judgment convicting the defendant of conspiracy in the second degree must be reversed and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial … . People v Wilson, 2016 NY Slip Op 05660, 2nd Dept 7-27-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RELIANCE ON A JURISDICTIONAL THEORY AT TRIAL WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE JURISDICTION CRITERIA ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF FAIR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/INDICTMENTS (RELIANCE ON A JURISDICTIONAL THEORY AT TRIAL WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL CRITERIA ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF FAIR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/JURISDICTION (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSPIRACY CHARGE, RELIANCE ON A JURISDICTIONAL THEORY AT TRIAL WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE  JURISDICTIONAL CRITERIA ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF FAIR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

,

TESTIMONY OF DNA EXPERT, WHICH WAS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED BY NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES, DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION; ILLEGAL STOP DID NOT REQUIRE SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENT, SUFFICIENT ATTENUATION.

The Third Department, in affirming defendant’s conviction, determined the testimony of the DNA expert (Pasqualino) did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation. Although the expert relied on data collected by non-testifying witnesses, the conclusions drawn from the data were entirely her own. In addition, the Third Department determined the concededly illegal stop of the defendant did not require suppression of his statement because the statement was sufficiently attentuated from the stop. An officer illegally stopped the defendant to tell him the police wanted to speak to him. The defendant  then drove to the station where he was read his Miranda rights. With respect to the DNA evidence, the court wrote:

Pasqualino testified that she analyzed raw data compiled by the nontestifying lab technicians and that she did not rely on the opinions or interpretation of anyone else in forming her scientific conclusions linking defendant’s DNA profile to the victim’s rape kit, which conclusions were contained in the reports that she authored… . * * *

There is no evidence in the record that any lab technician or analyst who participated in the preliminary processing and testing of this DNA evidence engaged in any data editing, analysis, comparisons or interpretations of the evidence or rendered any opinions regarding whether the data collected from the rape kit matched defendant’s DNA profile; likewise, there is no proof that Pasqualino relied upon any such opinions or conclusions drawn by others … . Further, the technicians’ compilation of objective data was not accusatory and did not, without Pasqualino’s expert analysis and testimony, link defendant to these crimes … . Under these circumstances, defendant’s right of confrontation was not violated when Pasqualino relied upon and made reference to data collected by nontestifying lab technicians … . People v Stahl, 2016 NY Slip Op 05597, 3rd Dept 7-21-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TESTIMONY OF DNA EXPERT, WHICH WAS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED BY NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES, DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY OF DNA EXPERT, WHICH WAS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED BY NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES, DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION)/CONFRONTATION, RIGHT TO (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY OF DNA EXPERT, WHICH WAS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED BY NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES, DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION)/DNA (TESTIMONY OF DNA EXPERT, WHICH WAS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED BY NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES, DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION)/STREET STOPS (ILLEGAL STOP DID NOT REQUIRE SUPPRESSION, STATEMENT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM THE STOP)/SUPPRESSION (ILLEGAL STOP DID NOT REQUIRE SUPPRESSION, STATEMENT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM THE STOP)/ATTENUATION (CRIMINAL LAW, (ILLEGAL STOP DID NOT REQUIRE SUPPRESSION, STATEMENT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM THE STOP)

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