You are here: / Criminal Law

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)

PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED, IN A RODRIGUEZ HEARING, THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY; WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY.

The Third Department determined the evidence presented at the Rodriguez hearing demonstrated the confidential informant's (CI's) identification of the defendant was confirmatory (i.e., based upon prior acquaintance with the defendant) and, therefore, a Wade hearing to determine the validity of the identification was not necessary. The court also noted that a two-hour discrepancy between when the drug sale took place as alleged in the indictment, and the testimony about the time of the sale at trial, did not deprive the defendant of the ability to defend against the allegations. With respect to the sufficiency of the identification of the defendant, the court wrote:

 

… “[A] Wade hearing is not required when the witness is so familiar with the defendant that there is little or no risk that police suggestion could lead to a misidentification” … . Where, as here, the People assert that the pretrial identification was merely confirmatory, the People bear the burden of “prov[ing] the witness's sufficient familiarity with the defendant at a Rodriguez hearing” … . “Although the People are not obligated to call the identifying witness at [the] Rodriguez hearing” … , they nonetheless must come forward with “sufficient details of the extent and degree of the protagonists' prior relationship” with one another … . Relevant factors to be considered in this regard include “the number of times the witness saw the defendant prior to the crime, the duration and nature of those encounters, time periods and setting of the viewings, time between the last viewing and the crime, and whether the two individuals had any conversations” … . People v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op 01521, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)/CRIMINAL LAW (TWO-HOUR DISCREPANCY RE: TIME OF DRUG SALE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF ABILITY TO DEFEND)/IDENTIFICATION (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)/RODRIGUEZ HEARING (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)/WADE HEARING (IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY, WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY)

,

APPEAL WAIVER INVALID, FLAWED ON-THE-RECORD EXPLANATION OF WAIVED RIGHTS NOT REMEDIED BY SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because the trial judge did not make it clear the appeal-rights were distinct from those waived by the guilty plea. The written waiver signed by the defendant was not sufficient to remedy the flawed colloquy:

 

Here, the court never adequately explained the nature of the waiver, the rights the defendant would be waiving, or that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty. Rather, the court merely stated that “as a part of this” — that is, as part of the guilty plea — defendant was waiving his right to appeal and thus, that the convictions would be final because no appellate court would review them. Despite our dissenting colleague’s suggestion otherwise, the problem with the waiver’s validity is not that there was “some ambiguity in the court’s colloquy.” Rather, by using the phrase “as a part of this,” the trial court expressly undercut the principle that a defendant must understand his waiver of appeal to be distinct from the rights forfeited upon a guilty plea … . …

… [T]the written waiver that defendant signed was no substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal … . This conclusion holds especially true here, where the record does not make clear when defendant signed the waiver. Although the waiver itself states that defendant signed the waiver only “after being advised by the Court,” it is not evident from the record whether defendant signed the waiver before the colloquy regarding his right to appeal, or whether he signed it after. People v Bryant, 2016 NY Slip Op 01427, 1st Dept 3-1-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (INVALID WAIVER OF APPEAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID)/WAIVER (APPEAL, WAIVER INVALID DESPITE SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER)

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO SEEK A DNA TEST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the indictment on speedy trial grounds. At issue was the delay associated with obtaining DNA test results. A delay for that purpose can be an “exceptional circumstance” justifying exclusion of the delay from the speedy trial clock, but only if the People act with due diligence. The court determined numerous other delays during the course of the proceedings demonstrated the People did not act with due diligence:

Pursuant to CPL 30.30(4)(g), periods of delay caused by “exceptional circumstances” are excludable from the time charged to the People; the People have the burden of proving the existence of an exceptional circumstance … . CPL 30.30(4)(g)(i) specifically makes excludable a continuance “granted because of the unavailability of evidence material to the People's case, when the district attorney has exercised due diligence to obtain such evidence and there are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence will become available in a reasonable period.” Under this provision, the unavailability of DNA test results can be considered an exceptional circumstance, so long as the People exercised due diligence to obtain the results … .

Acknowledging that “[t]here is no precise definition of what constitutes an exceptional circumstance,” the Court of Appeals has made clear that the exception to the rule must conform to the legislative intent of discouraging prosecutorial inaction … . People v Gonzalez, 2016 NY Slip Op 01388, 1st Dept 2-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO SEEK A DNA TEST, SPEEDY TRIAL DISMISSAL PROPER)/SPEEDY TRIAL (PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO SEEK A DNA TEST, SPEEDY TRIAL DISMISSAL PROPER)

JUSTICES DISAGREE WHETHER STOLEN PROPERTY AND ASSAULT AND ROBBERY OFFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED AS NOT SIMILAR IN LAW.

In affirming defendant’s conviction, the First Department, in two concurring memoranda, disagreed about whether the offenses should have been severed. Defendant assaulted and robbed a subway passenger, and upon arrest several stolen MetroCards were seized. Defendant was tried on all offenses in a single trial. Justice Renwick, disagreeing with Justice Andrias, argued that the severance issue was preserved and the motion should have been granted (although the error was harmless):

 

[FROM JUSTICE RENWICK’S CONCURRING MEMORANDUM:] Under the principles set forth in People v Pierce (14 NY3d 564, 573-574 [2010]), the motion court should have granted defendant’s motion to sever the counts charging possession of stolen property, relating to eight stolen MetroCards, from the other counts of the indictment, relating to an assault and robbery. The counts were not properly joined under CPL 200.20(2)(c), because they were not “similar in law,” except to the extent that “both offenses involve misappropriated property,” which does not suffice (id. at 574). Although the counts at issue here are more closely connected, factually, than were the counts in Pierce, we reject the People’s argument that this difference warrants a different result under the statute. While factual or evidentiary connections between counts may be relevant to joinder and severance under other portions of CPL 200.20 that are not applicable here, CPL 200.20(2)(c) only involves similarity of statutory provisions defining offenses. People v Davis, 2016 NY Slip Op 01257, 1st Dept 2-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUSTICES DISAGREE WHETHER STOLEN PROPERTY AND ASSAULT AND ROBBERY OFFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED)/SEVERANCE OF COUNTS (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTICES DISAGREE WHETHER STOLEN PROPERTY AND ASSAULT AND ROBBERY OFFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED)

,

PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the plain view exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted. Defendant walked in to a hospital with a gun shot wound and the police were notified. When the police officer arrived, defendant’s clothes were in a clear plastic bag on the floor. The officer examined the clothes and concluded defendant had shot himself with a gun which had been in his waistband. The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon. The Court of Appeals concluded one of the conditions of the plain-view warrant-exception had not been met by the evidence in the record, i.e., there was no showing the incriminating nature of the clothes was immediately apparent to the officer:

 

“Under the plain view doctrine, if the sight of an object gives the police probable cause to believe that it is the instrumentality of a crime, the object may be seized without a warrant if three conditions are met: (1) the police are lawfully in the position from which the object is viewed; (2) the police have lawful access to the object; and (3) the object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent” … .

Against this backdrop we conclude that the hearing court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the clothes seized by police. There was evidence adduced at the suppression hearing that the officer who seized the clothes knew defendant to have been shot, and that defendant awaited treatment at the hospital while dressed in clothes different from those he wore at the time of the shooting. More important, however, is what the evidence presented at the suppression hearing does not establish. That evidence does not show that, before the seizure, the testifying officer knew that entry and exit wounds were located on an area of defendant’s body that would have been covered by the clothes defendant wore at the time of the shooting. Similarly, the record of that proceeding contains no other indicium that could have given rise to a reasonable belief that the shooting had affected defendant’s clothes. To that end, there is no record support for the lower courts’ conclusion that the investigating officer had probable cause to believe that defendant’s clothes were the instrumentality of a crime … . People v Sanders, 2016 NY Slip Op 01255, CtApp 2-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY)/SUPPRESSION (PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREDMENT DID NOT APPLY)/PLAIN VIEW (EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY)

AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPELLATE RIGHTS AT SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE WAIVER AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA.

The Court of Appeals, in a concurring opinion by Judge Rivera, explained that an inadequate waiver of appeal at the time of a guilty plea cannot be remedied by an adequate explanation of the waived appellate rights at sentencing:

 

“It is the trial court’s responsibility ‘in the first instance,’ to determine ‘whether a particular [appellate] waiver satisfies [the] requirements’ ” … . In order for a trial court’s inquiry to be meaningful, by logic and reason, it must be part of the colloquy in which a court engages prior to accepting a defendant’s plea … . It would make little sense, and serve only to encourage the filing of a motion to vacate the plea on the ground that defendant did not appreciate the consequences of the waiver, if a court confirmed, after-the-fact, whether the defendant understood the nature of the rights relinquished. Thus, a court complies with its obligation to ensure that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, when a court adequately explains to defendant the “separate and distinct” right to appeal … , and “at least prior to the completion of the plea proceeding, [the court] assure[s] itself that defendant adequately understood the right that [defendant] was forgoing” … . Here, the court’s explanation at sentencing came too late to satisfy the court’s obligations. While the content of the court’s advisement was correct, its timing deprived defendant of the right to know and consider all the terms of the plea bargain prior to his decision to plead guilty. People v Leach, 2016 NY Slip Op 01253, CtApp 2-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE WAIVER AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE WAIVER AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA)WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE WAIVER AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA)

, ,

A DIAGNOSIS OF ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH NARCISSISTIC AND PARANOID FEATURES IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CIVIL COMMITMENT IN A SECURE FACILITY PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20.

In finding that respondent suffers from a dangerous mental disorder requiring civil commitment in a secure facility, the Third Department first determined a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) with narcissistic and paranoid features was sufficient to justify civil commitment pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 330.20:

… [R]espondent contends, among other things, that the fact that ASPD, alone, is a legally insufficient diagnosis for the purposes of civil confinement pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 (see Matter of State of New York v Donald DD., 24 NY3d 174, 191 [2014]) merits the conclusion that a diagnosis of ASPD with narcissistic and paranoid features is a legally insufficient diagnosis for the purposes CPL 330.20. The Supreme Court of the United States has established that “[s]tates retain considerable leeway in defining the mental abnormalities and personality disorders that make an individual eligible for [civil] commitment” … . The constitutional guarantee of due process limits that discretion, however, by ensuring that civil commitment is not used as a mechanism to identify and confine the dangerous but “typical [criminal] recidivist[s]” … . With this in mind, proof sufficient to satisfy due process requires proof of a mental condition that causes a person to have serious difficulty in controlling his or her dangerous behavior … .

* * * CPL 330.20 (1) (c) … does not limit the relevant form of dangerousness in the same manner; it only requires a relationship between respondent’s current mental condition and “a physical danger to himself [or herself] or others.”

Further, the diagnosis of ASPD with narcissistic and paranoid features is more specific than a generic ASPD diagnosis. Accordingly, this case does not force us to confront a generic ASPD diagnosis that, as elucidated by expert evidence, “means little more than a deep-seated tendency to commit crimes” … . Therefore, we turn to the expert evidence further clarifying respondent’s ASPD diagnosis and its attendant narcissistic and paranoid features.

Expert testimony established that ASPD causes individuals to have “distortions related to their thoughts [and] behaviors, and . . . a reckless disregard for societal norms.” Individuals are diagnosed with narcissistic features when they engage in “grandiose” thinking, have a “sense of self-importance” and feel “entitled” and possibly omnipotent. Finally, individuals with paranoid features often have feelings that “people are out to get them.” Considering this evidence, we conclude that a mental condition marked by a disregard for societal norms and specifically amplified by an unreasonably inflated sense of self worth and an irrational attribution of hostile intentions to other people sufficiently distinguishes a respondent from the typical recidivist and has a relationship to the requisite dangerousness pursuant to CPL 330.20. Accordingly, we conclude that the diagnosis of ASPD with narcissistic and paranoid features is not legally insufficient to support civil confinement pursuant to CPL 330.20. Matter of John Z. (Commissioner of Mental Health), 2016 NY Slip Op 01234, 3rd Dept 2-18-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (CIVIL COMMITMENT JUSTIFIED BY DIAGNOSIS OF ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH NARCISSISTIC AND PARANOID FEATURES)/CIVIL COMMITMENT (JUSTIFIED BY DIAGNOSIS OF ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH NARCISSISTIC AND PARANOID FEATURES)/DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER (CIVIL COMMITMENT JUSTIFIED BY DIAGNOSIS OF ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH NARCISSISTIC AND PARANOID FEATURES)

PROSECUTOR’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR STRIKING A JUROR REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the prosecutor refused to give a race-neutral reason for striking a nonwhite juror. The prosecutor argued that no reason need be provided for juror no. 2 because juror no. 2 was the first nonwhite juror to be struck. The Third Department noted that the judge asked for race-neutral reasons after defense counsel objected to a pattern of striking four nonwhite jurors. Therefore, the judge had implicitly concluded defense counsel had made a prima facie showing of discrimination. At that point the prosecutor was obligated to provide race-neutral reasons for striking all four nonwhite jurors, including juror no. 2:

 

“The purpose of the Batson rule is to eliminate discrimination, not minimize it” … . Accordingly, because “[t]he exclusion of any [nonwhite prospective jurors] solely because of their race is constitutionally forbidden” … , a defendant asserting a Batson challenge need not show a pattern of discrimination. “Although as part of their prima facie case parties often rely on numbers to show a pattern of strikes against a particular group of jurors, a prima facie case may be made based on the peremptory challenge of a single juror that gives rise to an inference of discrimination” … .

Here, County Court implicitly concluded that defendant had made a prima facie showing of discrimination as to all four of the jurors in question, and the burden then shifted to the People to provide race-neutral explanations for all four — not just three — of the nonwhite prospective jurors against whom the People asserted peremptory challenges. Given the People’s failure to provide — and County Court’s failure to require — such an explanation as to all four prospective jurors, defendant is entitled to a new trial. People v Jones, 2016 NY Slip Op 01212, 3rd Dept 2-18-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR STRIKING A JUROR REQUIRED REVERSAL)/JURORS (BATSON CHALLENGE, PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE A RACE-NEUTRAL REASON REQUIRED REVERSAL)/BATSON CHALLENGE (PROSECUTOR’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A RACE-NEUTRAL REASON REQUIRED REVERSAL)

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