You are here: / Criminal Law
,

GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REDUCED TO PETIT LARCENY, PROOF OF VALUE OF STOLEN PROPERTY INSUFFICIENT.

The Fourth Department, in the interest of justice, reduced defendant's grand larceny to petit larceny because of insufficient proof of the value of the stolen property:

The value of stolen property is “the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the crime” (Penal Law § 155.20 [1]). It is well settled that “a victim must provide a basis of knowledge for his [or her] statement of value before it can be accepted as legally sufficient evidence of such value” … . Furthermore, “[c]onclusory statements and rough estimates of value are not sufficient” to establish the value of the property … . “Although a victim is competent to supply evidence of original cost' . . . , evidence of the original purchase price, without more, will not satisfy the People's burden' ” … .

Here, the victim testified that several specific items were taken, but the only evidence of the value of those items was the victim's testimony regarding the purchase price of some of them, and her hearsay testimony regarding a purported expert's appraisal of some of the property, which was based solely on her description of certain jewelry to the purported expert. Based on the evidence of value in the record, we cannot conclude “that the jury ha[d] a reasonable basis for inferring, rather than speculating, that the value of the property exceeded the statutory threshold” of $3,000 … . People v Slack, 2016 NY Slip Op 01930, 4th Dept 3-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REDUCED TO PETIT LARCENY, PROOF OF VALUE INSUFFICIENT)/EVIDENCE (GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REDUCED TO PETIT LARCENY, PROOF OF VALUE INSUFFICIENT)/GRAND LARCENY (GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REDUCED TO PETIT LARCENY, PROOF OF VALUE INSUFFICIENT)

, , ,

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ANALYTICAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the juvenile delinquency finding was against the weight of the evidence. The juvenile was accused of throwing a kitten under the wheels of a moving vehicle. The single-witness case relied upon weak identification evidence. The court explained the “weight of the evidence” analytical criteria in this context:

We must “weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions” … . In weighing the conflicting testimony in a single-witness identification case, as here, we must independently consider, among other things, the truthfulness and reliability of the identification testimony … . * * *

… [T]he reliability of the witness’s identification of the appellant was called into doubt by several factors. An examination of her testimony reveals that the witness had only a limited opportunity and ability to observe the perpetrator because the incident occurred over a relatively short period of time, and there was a distance of a minimum of 10 feet between the witness and the perpetrator during their interaction. The witness was also admittedly excited and upset during the incident. In addition, the witness’s description of the perpetrator lacked specificity, and did not include body shape, height, weight, facial features, skin tone, accent, or any distinctive characteristics. We further note that the incident occurred in the late afternoon near the time that students were being released from several neighborhood schools, that the perpetrator was dressed in a school uniform similar in type to the uniforms worn by students at those schools, and that the witness’s description of the school uniform worn by the perpetrator did not match the appellant’s school uniform. Under these circumstances, the witness’s identification of the appellant was not convincing when balanced against the substantial evidence submitted by the appellant in her own defense. Matter of Shannel P., 2016 NY Slip Op 01853, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

FAMILY LAW (JUVENILE DELIQUENCY ADJUDICATION AGAINST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (JUVENILE DELIQUENCY ADJUDICATION AGAINST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (JUVENILE DELIQUENCY ADJUDICATION AGAINST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/APPEALS (JUVENILE DELIQUENCY ADJUDICATION AGAINST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (JUVENILE DELIQUENCY ADJUDICATION AGAINST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

, , ,

DEPORTATION OF DEFENDANT DID NOT RENDER APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT ACADEMIC; UPWARD DEPARTURE BASED UPON THE EXTREME VIOLENCE OF THE CRIME PROPER.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined the fact defendant had been deported did not render his appeal of a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) level 2 risk assessment academic ( a matter of first impression in the department). The court further determine the SORA court properly increased defendant's risk level based on the extreme violence of the crime, even though the guidelines took violence into account:

… [T]he People have failed to demonstrate that the defendant's involuntary absence from New York renders review of the order designating him a level two offender academic. As a result of his level two designation, the defendant's name, photograph, the details of his crime, and other information can be accessed online at the Division website, notwithstanding the fact that he has been deported … . The outcome of an appeal such as this, which concerns a defendant's risk level designation, will have certain practical consequences with respect to SORA registration requirements, such as the duration of the posting of this information, which is already on the website (see Correction Law § 168-h). * * *

While the SORA Guidelines do take into account the use of violence under risk factor 1, the People's proof demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the SORA Guidelines did not adequately take into account the true nature of the defendant's actions, and that the defendant's conduct tended to show a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community. The case summary indicates that the defendant repeatedly punched the victim in the face, placed a knife to her throat, threatened to kill her, put his mouth on her breasts and vagina, attempted to place his penis in her mouth, and put his penis in her vagina against her will. Following the incident, which lasted several hours, the police recovered various items within the subject residence that were covered in blood, and the victim's face was both bruised and bloody.

Thus, the defendant was properly designated a level two sex offender. People v Shim, 2016 NY Slip Op 01818, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA RISK LEVEL, DEPORTATION OF DEFENDANT DID NOT RENDER APPEAL ACADEMIC)/APPEALS (SORA RISK LEVEL, DEPORTATION OF DEFENDANT DID NOT RENDER APPEAL ACADEMIC)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (USE OF EXTREME VIOLENCE WARRANTED UPWARD DEPARTURE)

,

EVIDENCE OF PRIOR UNCHARGED BAD ACTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER.

The Third Department determined evidence of uncharged sexual contact with young girls should not have been admitted in evidence in this rape/sexual-abuse/endangering-the-welfare-of-a-child trial. The error was deemed harmless, however. The limited probative value of the proof was outweighed by its prejudicial effect:

Here, the People moved before trial for permission to offer, among other things, the testimony of four adult female witnesses that defendant had sexual contact with them during the 1970s when he was employed as their music teacher and they were between 12 and 14 years old. * * * The court found that the testimony was not relevant to the charges of rape in the second degree or sexual abuse in the second degree, as defendant's intent to commit these crimes could be inferred from commission of the acts themselves, but that it was relevant to the mens rea element of the charge of endangering the welfare of a child. * * *

… [T]he probative value of the testimony for the limited purpose of showing defendant's mental state in doing kindnesses for the victim was highly limited. The alleged prior bad acts were extremely remote in time, taking place decades previously. Further, there were significant factual differences between the actions that defendant allegedly took to gain the trust of his earlier alleged victims and those he used with the victim. By contrast, the prejudicial impact of the testimony — consisting of descriptions of multiple reprehensible acts allegedly committed by defendant against vulnerable children — was significant. People v Scaringe, 2016 NY Slip Op 01871, 3rd Dept 3-16-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF PRIOR UNCHARGED BAD ACTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOLINEUX, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR UNCHARGED BAD ACTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)

, ,

ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH PSYCHOPATHY SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE, SEX OFFENDER CIVIL MANAGEMENT PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the state's petition for sex offender civil management should not have been dismissed after the article 10 probable cause hearing. Expert evidence was presented which alleged respondent suffered from antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) with psychopathy. That was sufficient to demonstrate probable cause:

“[I]n article 10 proceedings, issues concerning the viability and reliability of the respondent's diagnosis are properly reserved for resolution by the jury” … . Here, the State expert opined that respondent suffers from a mental abnormality within the meaning of the MHL based on a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) with psychopathy. Although the factfinder at trial may or may not accept the expert's opinion, the expert's testimony at the hearing was not so deficient as to warrant dismissal of the petition at this early juncture, especially since the expert offered extensive testimony regarding the distinctions between ASPD and psychopathy, and since the Court of Appeals in Donald DD. did not state that a diagnosis of ASPD with psychopathy is insufficient to support a finding of mental abnormality … . Matter of State of New York v Jerome A., 2016 NY Slip Op 01788, 1st Dept 3-15-16

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH PSYCHOPATHY SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT)/SEX OFFENDERS (ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH PSYCHOPATHY SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT)

,

UNDER THE FACTS, PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined defendant's pre-trial request to represent himself was properly denied because the request raised a significant potential for obstruction and diversion. The request was made after the People rested in a suppression hearing:

… [T]he court properly denied defendant's request to represent himself. Although a request to proceed pro se at trial is generally deemed timely if asserted before trial (see People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]), defendant here waited until after the People had rested in the suppression hearing before requesting to proceed pro se within that hearing, raising a significant “potential for obstruction and diversion” (id.). Accordingly, the court properly denied defendant's request in the absence of “compelling circumstances” (id.). We note that, over the course of the proceedings, defendant was represented by a total of seven retained or assigned attorneys, and repeatedly changed his mind about whether to represent himself. People v Franklin, 2016 NY Slip Op 01781, 1st Dept 3-15-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED)/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED)

,

RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES VIOLATED BY INTRODUCTION OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED; ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER.

Although the error was deemed harmless, the First Department determined defendant’s right to confront the witness against him was violated. The witness’s grand jury testimony was read to the jury as past recollection recorded. However, because the witness asserted his fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, the truth of the grand jury testimony could not be tested by cross-examination. The First Department explained the relevant law:

Provided that a proper foundation is laid, grand jury testimony may be admitted as past recollection recorded, and its admission does not violate the Confrontation Clause where the witness testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination …, because “when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements” … . However, this may not apply when a witness appears at trial but invokes the Fifth Amendment … . Not every instance in which a witness invokes the privilege against self-incrimination will give rise to a Confrontation Clause violation; rather, “the Sixth Amendment is violated only when assertion of the privilege undermines the defendant’s opportunity to test the truth of the witness’ direct testimony” … .

Here, the witness asserted his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions that had a direct bearing on testing the truth of his grand jury testimony. Thus, the witness’s extensive assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights regarding the material facts “undermine[d] the process to such a degree that meaningful cross-examination within the intent of the [Confrontation Clause] no longer exist[ed]” … .  People v Rahman, 2016 NY Slip Op 01750, 1st Dept 3-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES VIOLATED BY INTRODUCTION OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, WITNESS ASSERTED FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO AVOID SELF-INCRIMINATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES VIOLATED BY INTRODUCTION OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, WITNESS ASSERTED FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO AVOID SELF-INCRIMINATION)

,

SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT REMEDY THE INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY.

The First Department determined defendant's waiver of appeal was invalid because the oral colloquy was insufficient. The signed written waiver did not fix the inadequate colloquy:

… [T]he Court never advised defendant of the consequences of the appeal waiver, or spoke to defendant to ensure he understood the rights he was forfeiting by signing the waiver … . Although defendant signed a written waiver, this “was no substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal” … . Furthermore, the written waiver says that defendant was “advised by the Court of the nature of the rights being waived,” but that never occurred. Rather, the court told defense counsel to explain the waiver of appeal to defendant, and following an off-the-record conference between defendant and his counsel, counsel indicated defendant had signed the waiver. Counsel's confirmation that he told defendant about the waiver cannot substitute for the court conducting its own inquiry. People v Harris, 2016 NY Slip Op 01741, 1st Dept 3-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL, WRITTEN WAIVER DID NOT REMEDY INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL, SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER DID NOT REMEDY INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY)/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL, SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER DID NOT REMEDY INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY)

ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOURTH DEGREE IS NOT A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOURTH DEGREE; SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE.

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction (by guilty plea) because the Superior Court Information (SCI) to which defendant pled did not allege a lesser-included offense of an offense charged in the original felony complaint. Attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree is not a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree:

The single count in the SCI was not an “offense for which the defendant [had been] held for action of a grand jury” (CPL 195.20), in that it was not an offense charged in the felony complaint or a lesser-included offense of an offense charged in the felony complaint … . Attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree under Penal Law §§ 110.00 and 220.09(1) is not a lesser-included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree under Penal Law § 220.09(3), because the former offense contains the element “narcotic drug” (Penal Law § 220.00[7]) that is not an element of the latter offense and, therefore, it is possible to commit the greater offense “without concomitantly committing, by the same conduct,” the lesser offense (CPL 1.20[37]…). Thus, the SCI upon which the defendant’s plea was based did not “include at least one offense that was contained in the felony complaint” or a lesser-included offense of an offense charged in the felony complaint … , and the SCI was jurisdictionally defective … . This defect survives the defendant’s failure to raise this claim in the County Court, his plea of guilty, and his waiver of the right to appeal … . People v Chacko, 2016 NY Slip Op 01689, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOURTH DEGREE NOT A LESSER-INCLUDED OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOURTH DEGREE, SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE)/SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOURTH DEGREE NOT A LESSER-INCLUDED OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOURTH DEGREE, SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE)/CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOURTH DEGREE NOT A LESSER-INCLUDED OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOURTH DEGREE, SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE)

CONNECTICUT SEXUAL ASSAULT STATUTE IS BROADER IN ITS REACH THAN NEW YORK COUNTERPARTS AND THEREFORE CANNOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second felony offender based on a Connecticut conviction for sexual assault. The court found the Connecticut statute was broader than its New York counterparts in both the “threat of harm,” and “accomplice liability” elements.  Therefore the violation of the Connecticut statute could not serve as a predicate felony in New York.

The New York statutes prohibit various sexual acts by forcible compulsion, which is defined (among other things) as the use of a threat “which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury [to someone] or in fear that [someone] will immediately be kidnapped” (Penal Law § 130.00[8]…). In contrast, CGSA § 53a-70(a)(1) does not contain any requirement that a threat issued to compel sexual intercourse must threaten immediate harm. Accordingly, the Connecticut statute is necessarily broader than its New York counterparts, and may not serve as a predicate offense … .

In addition, since CGSA § 53a-70(a)(1) is a general intent statute … , “the prosecution need not establish that the accused intended the precise harm or precise result which resulted from his acts” … . Accordingly, a conviction under the statute is warranted even if a rape committed by a person other than the defendant is the unintended result of the defendant's use or threatened use of force … . In contrast, New York law requires that in order to establish accessorial liability the People must establish that a defendant, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission of the crime at issue, either solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided another in committing the crime (Penal Law § 20.00). Accordingly, the Connecticut statute is broader than its New York counterparts in this regard as well. People v Davis, 2016 NY Slip Op 01623, 1st Dept 3-8-16

CRIMINAL LAW (VIOLATION OF CONNECTICUT SEXUAL ASSAULT STATUTE CANNOT SERVE AS PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)/SENTENCING (VIOLATION OF CONNECTICUT SEXUAL ASSAULT STATUTE CANNOT SERVE AS PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS (VIOLATION OF CONNECTICUT SEXUAL ASSAULT STATUTE CANNOT SERVE AS PREDICATE FELONY IN NEW YORK)

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