You are here: / Criminal Law

MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL, SECOND TRIAL NOT PRECLUDED.

The Second Department determined there was manifest necessity for a mistrial in this murder case. Defendant’s petition to prohibit a second trial was therefore properly denied:

In general, “double jeopardy will bar a retrial when a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection, unless the mistrial is granted as the product of manifest necessity'” … . “Manifest necessity for a mistrial has been found where the court concludes, after conducting a probing and tactful inquiry,’ that a juror is grossly unqualified to continue serving” and there are no alternates available … . Before declaring a mistrial, the court has “the duty to consider alternatives to a mistrial and to obtain enough information so that it is clear that a mistrial is actually necessary” … . A trial court’s determination that a mistrial is necessary is entitled to deference, as that court is in the best position to assess the circumstances … . Likewise, “the trial judge’s evaluation of the likelihood that the impartiality of one or more jurors may have been affected” will be accorded “the highest degree of respect” … .

Here, when the jury reconvened after the Sirois hearing, one juror (No. 10) had been excused, leaving 12 jurors, and the excusal of two more jurors (Nos. 7 and 9) was imminent, leaving only 10 jurors. Furthermore, although the mistrial was declared on the eighth business day after the presentation of evidence had commenced, only one partial day of evidence presentation had occurred, despite the Supreme Court’s initial estimate that the trial would take approximately two weeks (i.e., 10 business days). Matter of Whyte v Nassau County Dist. Attorney’s Off., 2016 NY Slip Op 03517, 2nd Dept 5-4-16

CRIMINAL LAW (MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL, SECOND TRIAL NOT PRECLUDED)/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL, SECOND TRIAL NOT PRECLUDED)/MANIFEST NECESSITY (CRIMINAL LAW, MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL, SECOND TRIAL NOT PRECLUDED)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL, SECOND TRIAL NOT PRECLUDED)

PENAL LAW PROVIDES A STATUTORY BASIS FOR PROSECUTING PHYSICIANS WHO PROVIDE AID IN DYING TO TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS; THE STATUTES DO NOT VIOLATE THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION.

The First Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined Penal Law 120.30 and 125.15 provide a valid statutory basis to prosecute licensed physicians who provide aid-in-dying to terminally ill patients and the application of the statutes does not violate the New York Constitution:

The word “suicide” has a straightforward meaning and a dictionary is hardly necessary to construe the thrust of Penal Law sections 120.30 and 125.15. It is traditionally defined as “the act or instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally,” especially “by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary [11th ed 2003]). Whatever label one puts on the act that plaintiffs are asking us to permit, it unquestionably fits that literal description, since there is a direct causative link between the medication proposed to be administered by plaintiff physicians and their patients’ demise. Myers v Schneiderman, 2016 NY Slip Op 03457, 1st Dept 5-3-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PENAL LAW PROVIDES A STATUTORY BASIS FOR PROSECUTING PHYSICIANS WHO PROVE AID IN DYING TO TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS; THE STATUTES DO NOT VIOLATE THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION)/SUICIDE (PENAL LAW PROVIDES A STATUTORY BASIS FOR PROSECUTING PHYSICIANS WHO PROVE AID IN DYING TO TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS; THE STATUTES DO NOT VIOLATE THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION)/AID IN DYING  (PENAL LAW PROVIDES A STATUTORY BASIS FOR PROSECUTING PHYSICIANS WHO PROVE AID IN DYING TO TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS; THE STATUTES DO NOT VIOLATE THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION)/PHYSICIANS (AID IN DYING, (PENAL LAW PROVIDES A STATUTORY BASIS FOR PROSECUTING PHYSICIANS WHO PROVE AID IN DYING TO TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS; THE STATUTES DO NOT VIOLATE THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION)

FAILURE TO PRODUCE DEFENDANT FOR A PROBATION INTERVIEW FOR THE PRESENTENCE REPORT REQUIRED RESENTENCING.

The First Department determined the fact that defendant was not produced for a probation interview, and the resulting absence of a social history from the probation report, required resentencing:

Under all the circumstances, including the fact that this was a conviction after trial rather than a negotiated plea, there should be a new sentencing proceeding. Defendant was not produced for a probation interview, and the presentence report accordingly contains no social history. There is no indication in the record that defendant intentionally avoided the interview. Counsel brought the lack of an interview to the court's attention on the day of sentencing, and requested an adjournment for that purpose. Defendant's opportunity to make a statement at sentencing was not a sufficient substitute for an interview in this case, and his choice not to make such a statement does not warrant a different conclusion. People v Harleston, 2016 NY Slip Op 03428, 1st Dept 5-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO PRODUCE DEFENDANT FOR A PROBATION INTERVIEW REQUIRED RESENTENCING)/PRESENTENCE REPORT (FAILURE TO PRODUCE DEFENDANT FOR A PROBATION INTERVIEW REQUIRED RESENTENCING)

,

LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive dissent, determined County Court did not abuse its discretion when it applied a statutory override for infliction of serious injury, adjudicating defendant a level three sex offender, despite the fact defendant was not charged with a sex offense. By statute, a defendant convicted of the unlawful imprisonment of a child is deemed a sex offender, even when no sex offense was committed. Here the child was assaulted (tortured) and seriously injured over the course of a five-day ordeal, but no sex offense was involved. The points assessed under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) criteria rose only to a level one. Because of the extreme violence, County Court applied the statutory override:

… [T]he application of the override for “infliction of serious physical injury,” “automatically result[s] in a presumptive risk assessment of level [three]” (Guidelines at 3). Therefore, properly framed, defendant’s argument is that the SORA court abused its discretion in declining to engage in a downward departure from the presumptive risk level three. We disagree.

Defendant’s sole argument to the SORA court was that the absence of a sexual component to his crime, in and of itself, warranted a level one adjudication. That factor, the existence of which was not in dispute, was considered [when] the Board assessed him 0 points for risk factor 2 — Sexual Contact with Victim. Defendant made no other argument of a mitigating factor to the SORA court in support of a downward departure. In the exercise of its discretion, the SORA court declined to depart from the presumptive risk level three. People v Howard, 2016 NY Slip Op 03415, CtApp 5-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD)/SORA (LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD)

,

PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.

The Court of Appeals noted that its review of whether there was probable cause for arrest, a mixed question of fact and law, is limited to whether there is support for a probable-cause finding in the record. Here the police were conducting surveillance on a target drug dealer. The police observed defendant take a bag from the target’s car, which was deemed sufficient to provide probable cause to arrest:

After a Darden hearing … , Supreme Court found that the confidential information had given the police “cause to believe” that the surveillance target was engaged in “drug activity.” Insofar as a Darden hearing is held to ensure “that the confidential informant both exists and gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause” … , it may be inferred from the Darden hearing court’s ruling, which was adopted by the suppression court for the purpose of determining probable cause, that the confidential information was not stale by the time of defendant’s arrest.

Furthermore, the officer’s justified belief that the surveillance target was trafficking in narcotics, together with the manner in which the bag was removed from the car, support the lower courts’ conclusion that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal possession of a controlled substance. Record support for probable cause may be found on the basis of “indicia of a drug transaction” known to “an experienced officer . . . trained in the investigation and detection of narcotics,” which include “handl[ing] [an] unidentified object in a manner typical of a drug sale” … . People v Joseph, 2016 NY Slip Op 03416, CtApp 5-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS)/APPEALS (COURT OF APPEALS REVIEW, CRIMINAL LAW, PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD)

PEOPLE NEED NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNEW THE KNIFE DEFENDANT POSSESSED MET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the People do not need to prove a defendant charged with possession of a gravity knife was aware the knife opened and locked by flicking the wrist downward. Here defendant claimed he always opened the knife with two hands, used it only to cut sheetrock and tile and did not know it was a gravity knife:

We … conclude that Penal Law § 265.01 (1) does not require the People to prove that defendants knew that the knife in their possession met the statutory definition of a gravity knife. The plain language of that subdivision demonstrates that the Legislature intended to impose strict liability to the extent that defendants need only be aware of their physical possession of the knife (see Penal Law §§ 15.00 [2]; 15.10). While knowing possession of the knife is required (see Penal Law § 15.15 [2]), we conclude it is not necessary that defendants know that the knife meets the technical definition of a gravity knife under Penal Law § 265.00 (5). People v Parrilla, 2016 NY Slip Op 03417, CtApp 5-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAVITY KNIFE, PEOPLE NEED NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNEW THE KNIFE DEFENDANT POSSESSED MET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE)/GRAVITY KNIFE (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE NEED NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNEW THE KNIFE DEFENDANT POSSESSED MET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE)

DENIAL OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

The Court of Appeals determined that defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was properly denied without a hearing:

“When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” … . .”[O]ften, a limited interrogation by the court will suffice” … . Here, the court gave the parties an opportunity to argue in furtherance of the motion to withdraw the plea, and because both parties declined, the motion was appropriately decided on the written submissions. Furthermore, while defense counsel claimed that defendant had been pressured by his family to take the plea, this Court has “never recognized 'coercion' by family members as a reason for withdrawing a guilty plea”… , and the record here does not demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion on that ground. Additionally, given defendant's silence in any sworn statement regarding his alleged use of drugs and alcohol and the court's ability to observe defendant during the colloquy …, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to have denied the motion to withdraw the plea without holding a hearing. People v Manor, 2016 NY Slip Op 03414, CtApp 5-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)/WITHDRAW PLEA, MOTION TO (DENIAL OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)

,

HOLDING SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE VIOLATED DUE PROCESS.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's presence is required at a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing to determined defendant's risk level:

A sex offender has a due process right to be present at a SORA hearing … , and the court “violated the due process rights of defendant when it held the SORA hearing in his absence without verifying that he had received the letter notifying him of the date of the hearing and his right to be present” … . We are thus constrained to reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a new hearing and sexually violent offender determination in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). People v Encarnacion, 2016 NY Slip Op 03369, 4th Dept 4-29-16


,

CODEFENDANT, WHO TESTIFIED AGAINST DEFENDANT, AND DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE SAME FIRM; IN THIS SITUATION AN INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT IS AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS AND CONSENTS IS REQUIRED; MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant's codefendant, pursuant to a plea bargain, testified against the defendant. The attorney who represented the codefendant and defendant's counsel were members of the same law firm. This situation has the potential of depriving defendant of his right to effective counsel requiring an inquiry by the court to ensure defendant is aware of all the facts and consents:

“Absent inquiry by the court and consent by the defendant, an attorney may not represent a criminal defendant in a trial at which a star prosecution witness is a codefendant whose plea bargain—including the promise to testify against defendant—was negotiated by a partner in the same firm. In these circumstances defendant is denied his right to effective assistance of counsel” … . Thus, a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel where a member of defense counsel's law firm represents a witness who testifies against defendant at trial unless the court conducts a “Gomberg inquiry to ascertain that the facts had been disclosed to defendant and that he [or she] had made a reasoned decision whether to proceed to trial with his [or her] attorney” … . People v Jackson, 2016 NY Slip Op 03317, 4th Dept 4-29-16


FAILURE TO PLACE ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO WEAR A STUNBELT DURING TRIAL, AND FAILURE TO APPRISE DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE, REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined County Court erred by failing to place on the record the reasons for requiring defendant to wear a stun belt during the trial, and by failing to apprise defense counsel of the contents of a note from the jury prior to accepting a verdict (an error that does not require preservation by objection):

We agree with defendant that the court erred in failing to make any findings on the record establishing that defendant needed to wear a stun belt during the trial … . * * *

We further agree with defendant that a new trial is required based on the court's failure to comply with CPL 310.30 in regard to Court Exhibit 11, a note from the jury during its deliberations. “[T]he [c]ourt committed reversible error by violating the core requirements of CPL 310.30 in failing to advise counsel on the record of the contents of a substantive jury note before accepting a verdict' ” … . Furthermore, “[w]here, as here, the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note . . . [,] preservation is not required' ” … . Contrary to the People's contention, the presumption of regularity does not apply to errors of this kind … . People v Gomez, 2016 NY Slip Op 03358, 4th Dept 4-29-16


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