You are here: / Criminal Law
,

PEOPLE DID NOT DELIBERATELY CALL WITNESS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ELICITING THE ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION; PEOPLE’S OWN WITNESS PROPERLY IMPEACHED WITH PRIOR STATEMENT; EXPERT TESTIMONY ON EFFECT OF EVENT STRESS ON IDENTIFICATION PROPERLY PRECLUDED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined (1) the People did not improperly call an eyewitness to the shooting to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination in front of the jury; (2) the People were properly allowed to impeach the eyewitness with his statement made to police at the time of the incident; and (3) expert testimony offered by the defense on the effect of “event stress” on the identification of the defendant was properly precluded. A Frye hearing was not required before preclusion. The expert witness was allowed to testify about “weapon focus” and “witness confidence.” With respect to a witness' invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination in front of the jury, the court explained the analytical criteria:

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution directs that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” (US Const Amend V). When a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege in front of the jury, “the effect of the powerful but improper inference of what the witness might have said absent the claim of privilege can neither be quantified nor tested by cross-examination, imperiling the defendant's right to a fair trial” … . It is therefore reversible error for the trial court to permit the prosecutor to deliberately call a witness for the sole purpose of eliciting a claim of privilege … . The critical inquiry is whether the prosecution exploited the witness's invocation of the privilege, either by attempting “to build its case on inferences drawn from the witness's assertion of the privilege” or utilizing those inferences to “unfairly prejudice [the] defendant by adding 'critical weight' to the prosecution's case in a form not subject to cross-examination” … . People v Berry, 2016 NY Slip Op 02283, CtApp 3-29-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DID NOT DELIBERATELY CALL WITNESS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ELICITING THE ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION)/CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE'S OWN WITNESS PROPERLY IMPEACHED WITH PRIOR STATEMENT)/CRIMINAL LAW (EXPERT TESTIMONY ON EFFECT OF EVENT STRESS ON IDENTIFICATION PROPERLY PRECLUDED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE DID NOT DELIBERATELY CALL WITNESS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ELICITING THE ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE'S OWN WITNESS PROPERLY IMPEACHED WITH PRIOR STATEMENT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EXPERT TESTIMONY ON EFFECT OF EVENT STRESS ON IDENTIFICATION PROPERLY PRECLUDED)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, EXPERT TESTIMONY ON EFFECT OF EVENT STRESS ON IDENTIFICATION PROPERLY PRECLUDED)

,

REDACTED STATEMENT OF CO-DEFENDANT IMPLICATED DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF BRUTON RULE, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined the redacted statement of a co-defendant (Villanueva), in its written form, left no doubt that the statement implicated defendant in this gang-assault murder case.  The error was not harmless and defendant's conviction was therefore reversed:

… [T]he written statement was not “effectively redacted so that the jury would not interpret its admissions as incriminating the nonconfessing defendant[s]” … . Rather, the statement, with large, “blank [spaces] prominent on its face, . . . 'facially incriminat[ed]'” a codefendant because it “involve[d] inferences that a jury ordinarily could make immediately, even were the confession the very first item introduced at trial” … . Any juror “wonder[ing] to whom the blank might refer need[ed] only lift his [or her] eyes to [Villanueva's codefendants], sitting at counsel table, to find what [would] seem the obvious answer” … . In our view, the replacement of the identifying descriptors of defendant with blank spaces did not leave “the slightest doubt as to whose name[] had been blacked out, but even if there had been, that blacking out itself would have not only laid the doubt but underscored the answer” … , particularly after the court instructed the jury that it was not to speculate about the redactions in any way. The redacted statement both “indicat[ed] to the jury that the original statement contained actual names” or clearly identifying descriptors and, “even if the very first item introduced at trial[,] [it] would immediately inculpate [a codefendant] in the charged crime”  … . Therefore, we conclude that its admission violated the Bruton rule. People v Cedeno, 2016 NY Slip Op 02281, CtApp 3-29-16

Similar issue and result in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissenting opinion— People v Johnson, 2016 NY Slip Op 02282, CtApp 3-29-16

CRIMINAL LAW (REDACTED STATEMENT OF CO-DEFENDANT IMPLICATED DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF BRUTON RULE, CONVICTION REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, REDACTED STATEMENT OF CO-DEFENDANT IMPLICATED DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF BRUTON RULE, CONVICTION REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, REDACTED STATEMENT OF CO-DEFENDANT IMPLICATED DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF BRUTON RULE, CONVICTION REVERSED)/BRUTON RULE (CRIMINAL LAW, REDACTED STATEMENT OF CO-DEFENDANT IMPLICATED DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF BRUTON RULE, CONVICTION REVERSED)

, ,

PROCEDURE USED TO EXCUSE PROSPECTIVE JURORS ON HARDSHIP GROUNDS WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S APPEAL TO GENDER BIAS DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the procedure used by the trial judge to excuse prospective jurors on hardship grounds was not a mode of proceedings error warranting reversal in the absence of preservation. At the outset of jury selection, the judge told the prospective jurors the trial might take five days. Anyone who felt they could not sit for five days was then allowed to leave the courtroom with the clerk who would evaluate the extent of the hardship.  The Court of Appeals held the hardship questioning occurred prior to formal voir dire and did not concern a prospective juror's fitness to serve, thereby distinguishing cases where the judge was absent during formal voir dire. The Court of Appeals further determined defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's remarks in summation which appealed to gender bias did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant in this assault /burglary case was a woman, as was the victim. The victim's boyfriend was the father of defendant's children. To counter the defendant's argument that the attacker was a male, the prosecutor told the jury the case was about “jealousy” and “obsession” and “only a woman” would inflict “this kind of injury.” With respect to the juror-hardship issue, the court explained:

Preservation is particularly important in a case like this because the defense, faced with the prospect that certain prospective jurors were claiming that they were unable to serve due to hardship, may very well have made a strategic decision not to challenge the procedure because he did not want to risk having those prospective jurors end up on the jury when it became apparent that they did not wish to serve. If defense counsel had an objection to the procedure employed by the trial court, he should have voiced it so that the court could have corrected any alleged error. People v King, 2016 NY Slip Op 02278, CtApp 3-29-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ALLOWING CLERK TO EVALUATE JURORS' REQUESTS TO BE EXCUSED ON HARDSHIP GROUNDS WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING CLERK TO EVALUATE JURORS' REQUEST TO BE EXCUSED FROM SITTING ON HARDSHIP GROUNDS WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR)/ATTORNEYS (FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR'S APPEAL TO GENDER BIAS DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR'S APPEAL TO GENDER BIAS DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)

, ,

SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; RULING THAT DETENTION WAS ILLEGAL WAS NOT ADVERSE TO THE DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RECONSIDERED ON APPEAL.

The Fourth Department determined cocaine found on defendant's person in a strip search should have been suppressed. Defendant was stopped on the street after the police saw an exchange between defendant and a woman. The defendant was patted down with his consent but nothing was found. The defendant was then placed in the back of a police car uncuffed. When the police questioned the woman, she told them defendant had cocaine between his buttocks, where it was eventually found. The trial court found defendant had been illegally detained but did not suppress. The court noted that, because the illegal detention finding was not adverse to the defendant, the court could not consider the issue on appeal. Therefore, the People's argument that the police actions were proper from the outset could not be entertained. The court concluded the seizure of the cocaine was not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal detention:

As a preliminary matter, we note that, “[s]ince we are reviewing a judgment on the defendant's appeal, and the issue of whether the defendant was [unlawfully detained] was not decided adversely to him, we are jurisdictionally barred from considering” the People's contention that the police officers' encounter with defendant was lawful at its inception and at every stage thereafter … .

We agree with defendant that the court erred in determining that the seizure of evidence from his person was attenuated from the taint of the illegality … . “While the effect of illegally initiated police intrusion may potentially become attenuated, as a practical matter there is rarely opportunity for the attenuation of primary official illegality in the context of brief, rapidly unfolding street or roadside encounters predicated on less than probable cause . . . [O]nce a wrongful police-initiated intrusion is established, suppression of closely after-acquired evidence appears to follow ineluctably” … . People v King, 2016 NY Slip Op 02264, 4th Dept 3-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUPPRESSION (SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/STREET STOPS (SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, RULING THAT DETENTION WAS ILLEGAL WAS NOT ADVERSE TO THE DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RECONSIDERED ON APPEAL)

, ,

MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT’S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER.

The Fourth Department determined the denial of defendant's midtrial motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant should not have been denied without a hearing. The search warrant application was not provided to the defense until after the trial had begun. The application indicated probable cause for the warrant was gained through a prior “security sweep” of the building:

In determining whether a hearing is required pursuant to CPL 710.60, “the sufficiency of defendant's factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant's access to information” … . We note that the motion was not required to be made in writing, as would be required for a pretrial motion to suppress (see CPL 710.60 [1]) and, because it was properly “made orally in open court” during trial, the court was required, “where necessary, [to] conduct a hearing as provided in [CPL 710.60 (4)], out of the presence of the jury if any, and make findings of fact essential to the determination of the motion” (CPL 710.60 [5]).

We conclude that a hearing was necessary herein. Defendant's allegation that the search was of his home was sufficient “to demonstrate a personal legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises” … . * * * … [T]he People's current contention [that the sweep was justified by exigent circumstances] … ” raise[s] a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue' of whether evidence was obtained in a constitutionally permissible manner” … . Thus, before ruling on the motion, “it was incumbent upon [Supreme C]ourt to conduct a hearing to determine whether there were sufficient exigent circumstances [or other factors such as an ongoing emergency situation that would] justify the . . . warrantless entry” into the building … . Therefore, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing on defendant's midtrial suppression motion … . People v Samuel, 2016 NY Slip Op 02222, 4th Dept 3-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT'S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT'S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT'S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT'S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER)

,

JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant's conviction for possession of a weapon, finding the People's request for a constructive-possession jury instruction should not have been granted. The defendant had been seen holding an object that appeared to have been fired and DNA evidence tied defendant to a revolver that was found five feet away from where defendant was lying, shot, in a parking lot.  There was no evidence which warranted a jury charge on constructive, as opposed to physical, possession of the weapon:

To meet their burden of proving defendant's constructive possession of the [revolver], the People had to establish that defendant exercised dominion or control over [the revolver] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” … . Here, we conclude that there is no view of the evidence that defendant had constructive possession of the revolver … . Defendant's “mere presence in an area where” the revolver was found “is not sufficient to establish that he exercised such dominion and control as to establish constructive possession” … . We further conclude that the error is not harmless inasmuch as we cannot determine if the verdict was based upon defendant's physical possession of the revolver or his constructive possession of it … . People v Diallo, 2016 NY Slip Op 02213, 4th Dept 3-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

,

SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT WOULD BE AT THE SEARCHED LOCATION, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court's granting of defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of a search warrant for a house (285 Lincoln Avenue). The search warrant sought evidence of a murder at a residence on Grafton Street. The defendant had been driven to the Grafton Street residence on the day of the murder. The search warrant at issue was for a different residence, 285 Lincoln Avenue. The search warrant application was based upon evidence the defendant's cell phone had been in the vicinity of the 285 Lincoln Avenue, the defendant had been seen in the driveway of 285 Lincoln Avenue, and defendant was a Facebook friend of the person to whom the utilities at 285 Lincoln Avenue were registered. However defendant was never seen entering 295 Lincoln Avenue and the search warrant application did not provide probable cause to believe evidence of the Grafton Street murder would be found at the property:

It is well settled that a search warrant may be issued only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur … , and where there is sufficient evidence from which to form a reasonable belief that evidence of the crime may be found inside the location sought to be searched … . Here, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly determined that the application for the search warrant contained no specific factual allegations that tied the location of 285 Lincoln Avenue to the evidence sought to be seized; failed to establish any dominion and control of 285 Lincoln Avenue by defendant; and failed to tie defendant to the Grafton Street murder, or to his possession of evidence or contraband pertaining to that murder … . People v Moxley, 2016 NY Slip Op 02192, 4th Dept 3-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT WOULD BE AT THE SEARCHED LOCATION, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT WOULD BE AT THE SEARCHED LOCATION, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT WOULD BE AT THE SEARCHED LOCATION, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES  (SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT WOULD BE AT THE SEARCHED LOCATION, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED)

,

FORCIBLE DETENTION AMOUNTED TO ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, GUILTY PLEA VACATED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department determined the forcible detention of defendant prior to finding heroin in plain view in a vehicle in which defendant was a passenger constituted an illegal arrest. The seized evidence, therefore, should have been suppressed and the indictment dismissed:

We … agree with defendant that he was unlawfully arrested without probable cause prior to the police finding packets of heroin in plain view in the vehicle. Although “[i]t is well established that not every forcible detention constitutes an arrest” … , we conclude that defendant was arrested when an officer, with his weapon drawn, opened the unlocked front seat passenger door of the vehicle, physically removed defendant, had him lie down on the ground, handcuffed and searched him, and placed him in a patrol vehicle … . “Under such circumstances, a reasonable [person] innocent of any crime, would have thought' that he [or she] was under arrest” … . Contrary to the People's contention and the court's determination, the officer's conduct ” went beyond merely ordering defendant from [the vehicle]. [He] took the additional “protective measures” of frisking defendant, handcuffing him and placing him in a police car . . . [S]uch an intrusion amounts to an arrest[,] which must be supported by probable cause' ” … . Inasmuch as the police lacked probable cause to arrest defendant before the officer returned to the vehicle and discovered the packets of heroin, the court should have suppressed that evidence, as well as the evidence subsequently found on defendant's person, as fruit of the poisonous tree … . People v Finch, 2016 NY Slip Op 02191, 4th Dept 3-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FORCIBLE DETENTION AMOUNTED TO ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, GUILTY PLEA VACATED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FORCIBLE DETENTION AMOUNTED TO ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, GUILTY PLEA VACATED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED)/SUPPRESSION (FORCIBLE DETENTION AMOUNTED TO ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, GUILTY PLEA VACATED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED)/STREET STOPS (FORCIBLE DETENTION AMOUNTED TO ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, GUILTY PLEA VACATED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED)

,

DEFENDANT’S STARING AT THE POLICE FROM ACROSS THE ROAD DID NOT JUSTIFY THE INITIAL APPROACH BY THE POLICE, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND INDICTMENT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's motion to suppress should have been granted and the indictment must be dismissed. The police approached the defendant and others in a patrol car merely because they had observed the defendant staring at the police from the other side of the road. The police pulled along side defendant and asked “what's up guys?” Defendant walked away and discarded a weapon. The Fourth Department found that the initial approach by the police was not warranted:

We conclude that merely staring at or otherwise looking in the direction of police officers or a patrol vehicle in a high crime area while continuing to proceed on one's way, absent any indicia of nervousness, evasive behavior, or other movements in response to seeing the police, i.e., “attendant circumstances . . . sufficient to arouse the officers' interest” … , is insufficient to provide the police with the requisite “objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality” to justify a level one encounter … . Here, beyond the fact that defendant had stared at the police in a “higher crime area” while continuing to walk down the sidewalk, the officers testified to no further observations of defendant or the other men that drew their attention … and, to the extent that the court found that defendant displayed any nervous or evasive behavior upon initially seeing the officers, we conclude that such a finding is unsupported by the record. We agree with defendant that the officers lacked other attendant circumstances to arouse their interest inasmuch as the encounter occurred at 6:30 in the evening rather than late at night and there was automobile traffic in the area at that time … . People v Savage, 2016 NY Slip Op 02184, 4th Dept 3-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT'S STARING AT THE POLICE FROM ACROSS THE ROAD DID NOT JUSTIFY THE INITIAL APPROACH BY THE POLICE, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND INDICTMENT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SUPPRESSION (DEFENDANT'S STARING AT THE POLICE FROM ACROSS THE ROAD DID NOT JUSTIFY THE INITIAL APPROACH BY THE POLICE, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND INDICTMENT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT'S STARING AT THE POLICE FROM ACROSS THE ROAD DID NOT JUSTIFY THE INITIAL APPROACH BY THE POLICE, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND INDICTMENT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/STREET STOPS (DEFENDANT'S STARING AT THE POLICE FROM ACROSS THE ROAD DID NOT JUSTIFY THE INITIAL APPROACH BY THE POLICE, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND INDICTMENT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

THE SOLE REMEDY WHEN A CONVICTION IS DEEMED AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IS DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT, REDUCTION TO A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined: (1) the defendant's conviction for robbery second degree was against the weight of the evidence because the physical injury element was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt (the injury at issue was a small cut on the victim's finger); and (2) when a conviction is deemed against the weight of the evidence, the only remedy is dismissal of the indictment and not a reduction to a conviction of a lesser included offense. The dissent saw no reason reduction to a conviction of a lesser included offense should not be available as a remedy:

“CPL 470.20 (5) provides that the determination by an intermediate appellate court that a verdict is against the weight of the evidence requires dismissal of the indictment . . . [T]he power to reduce a conviction to a lesser included offense is limited to cases in which it is determined that the evidence is not legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of an offense of which he [or she] was convicted but is legally sufficient to establish his [or her] guilt of a lesser included offense' (CPL 470.15 [2] [a]).” Thus, we conclude that “CPL 420.20 (5) requires dismissal of the indictment if it is determined that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence” (id. at 31). Indeed, the Court of Appeals has explained that “[a]n important judicial bulwark against an improper criminal conviction is not only the restrictive scope of review undertaken during a sufficiency analysis, but the protection provided by weight of the evidence examination in an intermediate appellate court. This special power requires the court to . . . determine whether the verdict was factually correct[,] and acquit a defendant if the court is not convinced that the jury was justified in finding that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt” … . As we explained in Heatley (116 AD3d at 30), “if the legislature had intended to provide the same relief to modify a judgment in the event that the weight of the evidence failed to support the conviction but supported a lesser included offense, it would have done so.” People v Cooney, 2016 NY Slip Op 02203, 4th Dept 3-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, THE SOLE REMEDY WHEN A CONVICTION IS DEEMED AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IS DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT, REDUCTION TO A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, THE SOLE REMEDY WHEN A CONVICTION IS DEEMED AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IS DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT, REDUCTION TO A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE)/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (CRIMINAL LAW, THE SOLE REMEDY WHEN A CONVICTION IS DEEMED AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IS DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT, REDUCTION TO A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE)

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