You are here: / Criminal Law
,

COMBINED RACIAL-GENDER BIAS IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE REMOVAL OF A JUROR; APPELLATE DIVISION HAS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BATSON ERRORS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the trial judge's failure follow the protocol for Batson challenges to the prosecutor's removal of African-American males from the jury required reversal. Although the issues were preserved, the court noted it had the power to exercise interest of justice jurisdiction over Batson issues. The court further held a combined racial/gender bias is the proper subject of a Batson challenge:

The wholesale exclusion of black men from the jury gives rise to a mandatory inference of discrimination at the first step of the Batson inquiry … . The prosecutor used peremptory strikes to eliminate black male jurors while not excluding others who expressed skepticism about the credibility of police officers, such as the woman on the first panel who stated that “sometimes the police [were] not [doing their job],” and “could be forceful . . . if . . . threatened,” and the woman on the second panel who said she'd “seen things go both ways” with the police. * * *

The court failed to follow the three-step Batson protocol. Although the prosecutor furnished some explanations for the strikes, he gave them only as to Hewitt and Prosser, not Lortey. Even if those explanations were accepted as facially neutral, the court was obliged to continue on to step three and afford defense counsel the opportunity to show that the prosecutor's stated reasons for the strikes were pretextual. Defense counsel was never given the opportunity to argue that the prosecutor's explanations were a pretext for discrimination. The court improperly combined steps and deviated from the Batson protocol, which cannot be considered harmless or nonprejudicial to defendant … . People v Watson, 2016 NY Slip Op 03688, 1st Dept 5-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (COMBINED RACIAL-GENDER BIAS IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE REMOVAL OF A JUROR; APPELLATE DIVSION HAS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BATSON ERRORS)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COMBINED RACIAL-GENDER BIAS IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE REMOVAL OF A JUROR; APPELLATE DIVSION HAS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BATSON ERRORS)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, COMBINED RACIAL-GENDER BIAS IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE REMOVAL OF A JUROR; APPELLATE DIVSION HAS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BATSON ERRORS)/BATSON CHALLENGES (COMBINED RACIAL-GENDER BIAS IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE REMOVAL OF A JUROR; APPELLATE DIVSION HAS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BATSON ERRORS)

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SHOW PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT PHOTOS OF VICTIM’S WOUNDS AND FAILING TO INFORM EXPERT OF THE PEOPLE’S REVENGE THEORY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant's counsel was not ineffective. Defendant was 15 when he stabbed the 12-year-old victim more than 20 times (the victim survived). The defendant claimed he blacked out and had no memory of the stabbing. The defense called an psychiatrist who testified defendant's mental condition, together with his use of marijuana, made it impossible for the defendant to form the intent to commit the crime. Defense counsel did not show the expert the photos of the victim's wounds and did not inform the expert of the prosecution's theory that the defendant considered the victim a “snitch” and attacked him for that reason:

Whatever the wisdom of counsel's strategy, we cannot say that it was inconsistent with the actions of a reasonably competent attorney. There is no evidence on this record of what information forensic experts ordinarily require in order to arrive at an expert conclusion, or what information the expert requested in this case. Nor is there any evidence of what information an attorney ordinarily would or should provide to such an expert, independently of the expert's request. Therefore, it is not clear that prevailing professional norms would have required counsel to provide the expert with photographs and hospital records of the victim's stab wounds or inform him of the prosecution's theory of the case … . People v Henderson, 2016 NY Slip Op 03649, CtApp 5-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SHOW EXPERT PHOTOS OF VICTIM'S WOUNDS AND FAILING TO INFORM EXPERT OF THE PEOPLE'S REVENGE THEORY)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SHOW EXPERT PHOTOS OF VICTIM'S WOUNDS AND FAILING TO INFORM EXPERT OF THE PEOPLE'S REVENGE THEORY)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SHOW EXPERT PHOTOS OF VICTIM'S WOUNDS AND FAILING TO INFORM EXPERT OF THE PEOPLE'S REVENGE THEORY)

COUNTY COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING BEFORE A JUDICIAL HEARING OFFICER TO DETERMINE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, held County Court properly relied upon the results of a hearing conducted by a judicial hearing officer (JHO) to determine the amount of restitution to be paid by the defendant. The defendant was given the opportunity to submit additional evidence to County Court:

While Penal Law § 60.27 (2) “emphatically advises that it is 'the court' . . . which is to conduct any hearing thought necessary for this purpose” … , the court is “not . . . restricted to reliance upon only competent evidence” (Kim, 91 NY2d at 411). Rather, CPL 400.30 “embodies a liberal evidentiary standard”… and provides that “[a]ny relevant evidence, not legally privileged, may be received regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence” (CPL 400.30 [4] [emphasis added]). That is, even where “the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding [of the actual amount of loss]” or the defendant has requested a hearing (Penal Law § 60.27 [2]), nothing in the statutory text requires a formal evidentiary hearing. Rather, as noted, this Court has characterized the hearing as “a reasonable opportunity [for the defendant] to contest the People's evidence or supply evidence on his [or her] own behalf”… . People v Connolly, 2016 NY Slip Op 03651, CtApp 5-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING BEFORE A JUDICIAL HEARING OFFICER TO DETERMINE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION)/RESTITUTION (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING BEFORE A JUDICIAL HEARING OFFICER TO DETERMINE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION)

,

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence was not sufficient to justify and upward departure from a Level Two to a Level Three sex offender. Defendant restricted the freedom of a child who subsequently was either released or escaped when her friend, who had escaped, called for her. Defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping. County Court's upward departure was, in the opinion of the majority, based upon speculation about defendant's motives and intentions, which did not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence of aggravating circumstances not taken into account by the risk assessment:

We agree with defendant that the court erred in granting the People's request for an upward departure from a presumptive level two risk to a level three risk based upon its assumption that the victim would have suffered greater harm had the other child not intervened and allowed the victim to escape. While it may be reasonable to assume that defendant had sinister intentions when he lured two young children into his home, such an assumption does not constitute the requisite “clear and convincing evidence that there exist aggravating circumstances of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines”… . People v Baldwin, 2016 NY Slip Op 03609, 4th Dept 5-6-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA RISK ASSESSMENT, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)/SORA (EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)/UPWARD DEPARTURE (SORA, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)/EVIDENCE (SORA RISK ASSESSMENT, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)

,

COURT FAILED TO MAKE A MINIMAL INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINT ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant's conviction because the trial judge did not make an adequate inquiry into defendant's complaint about a conflict of interest with defense counsel:

… [T]he court violated [defendant's] right to counsel when it failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into his complaint regarding a conflict of interest with defense counsel. Prior to commencement of a scheduled suppression hearing, defense counsel informed the court that, based on recent discussions, defendant wanted to request new counsel, and that there had been a breakdown in communication between defense counsel and defendant regarding the issues that they needed to address. Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. '[A]lthough there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” … . Moreover, “where potential conflict is acknowledged by counsel's admission of a breakdown in trust and communication, the trial court is obligated to make a minimal inquiry” … . People v Tucker, 2016 NY Slip Op 03637, 4th Dept 5-6-16

CRIMINAL LAW (COURT FAILED TO MAKE A MINIMAL INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT'S COMPLAINT ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT FAILED TO MAKE A MINIMAL INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT'S COMPLAINT ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED)

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HIS COUNSEL PROVIDED WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant alleged his attorney wrongly told him there was no possibility defendant would be deported based upon the conviction:

In support of his motion, defendant, who is not a United States citizen, submitted an affidavit in which he asserted that his attorney advised him prior to the plea that “there is no way in the world” that he would be deported as a result of his plea because he was being sentenced to less than five years in prison. Defendant further asserted that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been properly advised of the deportation consequences of the plea. According to defendant, he was deported to Jamaica after serving his term of imprisonment.

As the Court of Appeals has held, an affirmative misstatement of the law regarding the deportation consequences of a plea may provide a basis for vacatur of the plea if it can be shown that the defendant was thereby prejudiced, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would not otherwise have pleaded guilty … . Here, we conclude that defendant's sworn assertions, if true, entitle him to relief and, because it cannot be said that his assertions are incredible as a matter of law, a hearing is required. We reject the People's contention that the court properly denied the motion because defendant failed to submit an affidavit from his former attorney corroborating his claim … . Where, as here, defendant's “application is adverse and hostile to his trial attorney,” it “is wasteful and unnecessary” to require the defendant to secure an affidavit from counsel, or to explain his failure to do so … . Moreover, contrary to the People's further contention, defendant's assertion that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had been properly advised regarding deportation is sufficient to raise an issue of fact whether he was prejudiced by counsel's alleged error … . People v Bennett, 2016 NY Slip Op 03608, 4th Dept 5-6-16

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HIS COUNSEL PROVIDED WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HIS COUNSEL PROVIDED WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION)

,

AMOUNT OF HEROIN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY SALE AND RELATED CONSPIRACY COUNTS DISMISSED.

The Third Department reversed defendant's conviction of the statutory sale of more than one-half ounce of heroin and the related conspiracy conviction (the remaining 15 counts were not reversed). The court determined the evidence of the amount of heroin sold was equivocal:

A statutory sale may be proven by evidence of an offer or agreement to sell drugs, but “the weight of the material must be independently shown” … . Here, no narcotics were recovered by the police, and the proof of the weight of heroin that defendant agreed to procure for [codefendant] Cochran was equivocal; while the amount of 16 grams was discussed, Cochran also stated that he might purchase “something like that” or, because he had limited funds and other expenses, might “get something lower.” As the People correctly argue, the full amount of transferred narcotics need not always be recovered to satisfy the weight requirement when a sale is based upon an offer or an agreement; nevertheless, there must be some form of independent evidence from which the total weight can be extrapolated … . As there was none here, defendant's conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree is reversed and the corresponding count of the indictment dismissed … . People v Wright, 2016 NY Slip Op 03550, 3rd Dept 5-5-15

CRIMINAL LAW (AMOUNT OF HEROIN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY SALE AND RELATED CONSPIRACY COUNTS DISMISSED)/STATUTORY SALE (CRIMINAL LAW, AMOUNT OF HEROIN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY SALE AND RELATED CONSPIRACY COUNTS DISMISSED)/WEIGHT OF DRUGS (AMOUNT OF HEROIN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY SALE AND RELATED CONSPIRACY COUNTS DISMISSED)

FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE VERBATIM WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL.

The Third Department determined the trial judge made a mode of proceedings error by failing to read to the parties, verbatim, a note from the jury:

… [W]e conclude that County Court committed a mode of proceedings error for which no objection was necessary … . The court had an affirmative obligation to read exhibit No. 5 verbatim so that the parties had the opportunity to accurately analyze the jury's question and frame intelligent suggestions for the court's response … . The record is devoid of any information as to whether defendant knew about the portion of exhibit No. 5 stating “# 8G 4NG.” The ambiguity of the notation is also of concern to this Court.

Although the parties requested that the court inquire as to whether the jury had reached a verdict and whether it was “complete,” we cannot speculate as to what defendant knew about exhibit No. 5 … . Furthermore, “we cannot assume that the omission was remedied at an off-the-record conference” … . Accordingly, as County Court committed a mode of proceedings error as to exhibit No. 5, we must remit for a new trial on counts 1 through 9 of the consolidated indictment. People v Victor, 2016 NY Slip Op 03551, 3rd Dept 5-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE VERBATIM WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL)/JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE VERBATIM WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL)

POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED AND SEIZED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of his intoxication should have been granted. The police did not notice signs of intoxication until after defendant was stopped and seized:

The officers’ testimony indicated that they did not perceive signs that defendant had committed the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol until after defendant was seized while walking away from the officers and then turned toward them. Thus, the officers’ observations did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop defendant, in the absence of “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity” … . People v Coronado, 2016 NY Slip Op 03601, 1st Dept 5-5-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED AND SEIZED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUPPRESSION (POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED AND SEIZED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/STREET STOPS (POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED AND SEIZED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a partial dissent, determined appeals as of right, irrespective of the issues raised, should not be dismissed because the appellant has been deported. Permissive appeals, such as an appeal of the denial of a motion to vacate a conviction, are, however, subject to discretionary dismissal because the appellant has been deported:

… [W]e conclude that this Court’s holding in Ventura [17 NY3d 675] prohibits an intermediate appellate court from exercising its discretion to dismiss a pending direct appeal on the ground that the defendant has been involuntarily deported, regardless of the appellate contentions raised by the defendant. …

We reach a different conclusion with respect to [a] pending permissive appeal. Our holding in Ventura was based upon a criminal defendant’s fundamental right to a direct appeal granted by CPL 450.10. That statute has no application, however, in the context of permissive appeals. Rather, CPL 450.15 governs an appeal from an order denying a CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment, and provides that a certificate granting leave to appeal must be obtained pursuant to CPL 460.15 (see CPL 450.15 [1]). In Ventura, this Court spoke of a criminal defendant’s “absolute right,” “statutory right,” “fundamental right,” and “basic entitlement” to appellate consideration of a direct appeal … . A defendant has no such fundamental right or basic entitlement to appeal where the defendant must seek permission to appeal to the intermediate appellate court pursuant to CPL 450.15. …

Where an intermediate appellate court has permissive jurisdiction over a pending appeal, the intermediate appellate court retains its discretion to dismiss the pending permissive appeal due to the defendant’s involuntary deportation. People v Harrison, 2016 NY Slip Op 03547, CtApp 5-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL, APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND)/IMMIGRATION (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND)/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND)

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