You are here: / Criminal Law

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY USED TO DETERMINE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK LEVEL.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, over a dissent, determined the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) and Supreme Court properly considered defendant’s youthful offender adjudication in assessing defendant’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk level. The court distinguished People v Campbell, 98 AD3d 5, where it ruled a juvenile delinquency adjudication could not be considered in a SORA risk-level analysis. Here the youthful offender adjudication resulted in a level three risk-assessment. Without the youthful offender adjudication defendant would have been assessed a level-two risk:

 

[Re:] whether Campbell precluded the Board and the Supreme Court from considering the defendant’s youthful offender adjudication in determining his SORA risk level designation, we note that there are important distinctions between juvenile delinquency adjudications and youthful offender adjudications. While juvenile delinquency adjudications and youthful offender adjudications have somewhat analogous purposes, juvenile delinquency adjudications can only be made in Family Court Act article 3 proceedings, and are based on acts committed by individuals who are too young to be held criminally responsible for their conduct. In contrast, youthful offender adjudications can only follow a criminal conviction. Comparing the relevant sealing provisions of the Family Court Act and the Criminal Procedure Law, it is clear that while evidence from juvenile delinquency proceedings is inadmissible in judicial proceedings, with an exception permitted only for sentencing in a criminal action (see Family Ct Act § 381.2[1]), sealed youthful offender adjudications may be made available if there is specific statutory or judicial authorization to do so (see CPL 720.35[2]…). Thus, as the People correctly contend, the statutory restrictions on the use of juvenile delinquency records addressed by this Court in Campbell are significantly different from the statutory restrictions on the use of youthful offender adjudications. Taking these distinctions in the statutory sealing provisions into account, we conclude that Campbell does not preclude the Board or the courts from considering a defendant’s youthful offender adjudication in determining his SORA risk level designation. * * *

… [A]s amended in 2011, [CPL 168-1(1)] clearly provides that members of the Board are employees of DOCCS, and that all official records relating to a youthful offender adjudication are to be made available to DOCCS [Department of Corrections and Community Services] (see CPL 720.35(2). Where, as here, the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts must give effect to its plain meaning … .  People v Francis, 2016 NY Slip Op 00488, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY USED TO DETERMINE SORA RISK LEVEL)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT)/SORA (YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT)

JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISQUALIFY A JUROR WHO SAID SHE COULD NOT CONTINUE DELIBERATING BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT SEPARATE HER EMOTIONS FROM THE CASE.

The First Department, affirming defendant’s manslaughter conviction over an extensive dissent, determined the trial court properly refused to disqualify a juror after she stated she was not able to continue deliberating because she could not “separate [her] emotions from the case.” The First Department explained the criteria for disqualifying a juror as “grossly unqualified” and noted the juror ultimately agreed she would be able to determine what the facts were, on her own, and then apply the law:

 

After a juror is sworn in, the juror should be disqualified only “when it becomes obvious that [the] juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict” (CPL § 270.35[1]). The trial court properly concluded, based upon its observations of the juror and its interactions with her, that she was not grossly unqualified from continuing to serve (CPL § 270.35[1]…). Contrary to how the dissent characterizes the trial court’s interactions with the juror, the colloquy, consisting of some 10 transcribed pages, shows that the court patiently listened to the juror and tactfully asked her probing questions to determine whether, for some reason, she could not be impartial … . She was candid in her responses and forthright about her concerns. None of her concerns had to do with fear about her personal safety … , nor did she express any concerns about feeling coerced by her fellow jurors to vote in any particular way … . The juror never expressed an inability to deliberate fairly and render an impartial verdict, nor did she make any statements that could be taken as evidence of bias or sympathy either towards the deceased or the defendant that would have prevented her from deciding defendant’s guilt or innocence. The juror only said that she was having difficulty separating her emotions, not that she was incapable of deciding the facts or applying the law, or that she would disobey the court’s instructions. People v Spencer, 2016 NY Slip Op 00447, 1st Dept 1-26-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISQUALIFY A JUROR WHO STATED SHE COULD NOT DELIBERATE FURTHER BECAUSE SHE WAS EMOTIONALLY OVERWHELMED)/JURIES (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISQUALIFY A JUROR WHO STATED SHE COULD NOT DELIBERATE FURTHER BECAUSE SHE WAS EMOTIONALLY OVERWHELMED)/DISQUALIFICATION OF JUROR (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISQUALIFY A JUROR WHO STATED SHE COULD NOT DELIBERATE FURTHER BECAUSE SHE WAS EMOTIONALLY OVERWHELMED)

,

SEX OFFENDER CAN NOT BE KEPT IN PRISON AFTER SERVING HIS MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON THE GROUND SUITABLE HOUSING HAD NOT YET BEEN FOUND.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined a sex offender could not be kept in prison after he had served his maximum sentence on the ground that suitable housing had not yet been found:

 

There is no dispute here that, due to petitioner’s status as a risk level III sex offender, his release was subject to the mandatory condition that he have suitable housing located more than 1,000 feet from school grounds (see Executive Law § 259-c [14]…). Further, petitioner concedes that the Board of Parole (hereinafter the Board) was authorized to order, on January 15, 2015, that he be transferred to an RTF [residential treatment facility] (see Penal Law § 70.45 [3]; Correction Law § 73 [10]). In response to the petition, respondents explain that petitioner was assigned, but never actually transferred, to Woodbourne Correctional Facility, an RTF, due to an unspecified mental health condition … . Accordingly, there is no dispute that petitioner remained confined in a maximum security correctional facility for more than eight months past the expiration of his three-year determinate sentence. Respondents provide no convincing authority for this unilateral decision, nor do we discern any.

We have previously held that the Board has discretion to deny parole release to an inmate who has not secured an approved residence on his or her conditional release date … . In contrast, we recently held that DOCCS does not have the authority to retain an inmate beyond the inmate’s maximum expiration date in order to finalize the terms of PRS [postrelease supervision], because it was conclusively bound by the sentence and commitment order … . … [W]e find that when a risk level III sex offender reaches his or her maximum expiration date, DOCCS must release the individual to either an approved residence or to an RTF. Where an individual needs mental health treatment not otherwise available at an RTF, DOCCS must, prior to the release date, seek a court order authorizing continued hospitalization pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 9 or admission to a secure detention facility pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 (see Correction Law § 404). People ex rel. Green v Superintendent of Sullivan Corr. Facility, 2016 NY Slip Op 00417, 3rd Dept 1-21-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER CAN NOT BE KEPT IN PRISON AFTER SERVING MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON GROUND SUITABLE HOUSING HAS NOT YET BEEN FOUND)/SEX OFFENDERS (SEX OFFENDER CAN NOT BE KEPT IN PRISON AFTER SERVING MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON GROUND SUITABLE HOUSING HAS NOT YET BEEN FOUND)/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDER CAN NOT BE KEPT IN PRISON AFTER SERVING MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON GROUND SUITABLE HOUSING HAS NOT YET BEEN FOUND)

,

EVIDENCE OF AN UNRELATED DRUG SALE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction in a drug-sale case because evidence of a prior unrelated drug sale was allowed to be introduced. There was no issue in the case to which the prior crime pertained. The evidence was not necessary to demonstrate defendant’s motive. The prejudicial effect of the evidence, therefore, outweighed its probative value:

 

Evidence of prior bad acts or uncharged crimes may be admissible to show motive to commit a crime under one of the traditional Molineux exceptions — where the probative value exceeds its prejudicial effect … . That said, “there is usually no issue of motive in a drug sale case, as the seller’s motivation is nearly always financial gain” … . Moreover, “evidence of similar uncharged crimes has probative value, but as a general rule it is excluded for policy reasons because it may induce the jury to base a finding of guilt on collateral matters or to convict a defendant because of his [or her] past” … . The [evidence in question] is highly suggestive of an illicit drug transaction, and it is difficult to discern any relevant impact other than to show defendant’s criminal propensity. As this case largely turned on [a witness’] credibility, we cannot characterize the error in admitting this evidence as harmless, notwithstanding County Court’s curative instruction … . People v Magee, 2016 NY Slip Op 00399, 3rd Dept 1-21-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF UNRELATED PRIOR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE OF UNRELATED PRIOR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/MOLINEUX (EVIDENCE OF UNRELATED PRIOR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)

,

WHERE A WITNESS STATES SHE DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION AS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT.

The Third Department determined County Court properly denied defense counsel’s request to enter the victim’s statement in evidence as a prior inconsistent statement. The court explained that, where a witness states she does not recall making a statement, it is necessary to call a witness who was present when the statement was made to lay a proper foundation for admission. The court also noted that the statement was not so inconsistent with the witness’ testimony as to warrant its use in cross-examination. With respect to the foundation for the evidence, the court wrote:

 

“It is well established that a witness’ prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach his [or her] trial testimony [a]nd the test of inconsistency . . . is not limited to outright contradictions between a witness’ prior statements and his [or her] trial testimony” … . However, before a witness may be impeached with such a statement, a proper foundation must be laid … , and, “[i]f the witness denies that the statement was made or does not remember making it, he or she may be impeached by the testimony of others who heard the statement” … .

Here, while cross-examining the victim at trial, defense counsel questioned her about the statement that she gave to State Trooper Joseph Smith several hours after the attack occurred. Specifically, counsel asked the victim if she remembered giving a statement to Smith, to which she said, “I don’t recall. I don’t remember a lot.” Counsel then asked, “You don’t remember giving a statement?” to which the victim answered, “I remember giving a statement, yes, I do, but everything was jumbled.” Counsel then asked if the victim remembered telling Smith that she was sleeping on the couch just before the altercation. The victim denied making such statement and explained that she told Smith that she was lying on the couch trying to go to sleep. After being shown the statement by counsel, the victim confirmed that it was, in fact, the statement she vaguely recalled being read to her by Smith and that she had signed. Defendant then unsuccessfully attempted to offer the victim’s statement into evidence. County Court sustained the People’s hearsay objection, noting that Smith was available to be called as a witness and questioned with regard to the victim’s statement. Inasmuch as defendant failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of this hearsay evidence, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s ruling. People v Maxam, 2016 NY Slip Op 00391, 3rd Dept 1-21-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WHERE WITNESS DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION AS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WHERE WITNESS DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION AS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT)/PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, WHERE WITNESS DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION)

THE PEOPLE’S STATEMENTS OF READINESS FOR TRIAL WERE DEEMED ILLUSORY; CASE DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the People’s two statements of readiness (for trial) were illusory. The defendant’s case should have been dismissed on speedy trial grounds:

 

First, the People provided no explanation why, after filing and serving the certificate of readiness on August 30, 2011, shortly after defendant’s arraignment on August 25, 2011, they answered not ready at the next court date on September 7, 2011 … . Nothing in the record, express or inferred, explains their change in status from ready to not ready. As the People “gave no explanation for the change in circumstances between the initial statement of readiness and the subsequent admission that the People were not ready to proceed,” and the statement of readiness thus “did not accurately reflect the People’s position,” the People should have been charged with the entire period, a total of 70 days … . The People argue that the court did not ask for any reason, but the burden rests on the People to clarify, on the record, the basis for the adjournment … .

Second, after the People answered not ready on January 31, 2012, because the prosecutor was on trial in another case, the matter was adjourned to March 20, 2012. On February 7, 2012, the People filed and served a certificate of readiness. At the next court date, March 20, 2012, however, they again answered not ready because the prosecutor was on trial in another case. The court properly deemed the entire period chargeable to the People, “notwithstanding” the February 7, 2012 certificate of readiness, but should have also charged subsequent adjournments to the People. If the prosecutor was on trial at the prior and subsequent adjournments, it is unclear why the People filed and served an off-calendar certificate of readiness, or whether the prosecutor was on trial in the same or a different case. As a result, the February 7, 2012 certificate of readiness was illusory, and the entirety of subsequent adjournment periods (not merely the number of days the People requested), until the People next announced that they were ready, should have been charged to them. Specifically, the 50 days from March 20, 2012 until May 9, 2012, 61 days from May 9, 2012 to July 9, 2012, and 52 days from July 9, 2012, until August 30, 2012, when the People validly declared their readiness, should have been charged. People v Rodriguez, 2016 NY Slip Op 00423, 1st Dept 1-21-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SPEEDY TRIAL, PEOPLE’S STATEMENTS OF READINESS DEEMED ILLUSORY)/SPEEDY TRIAL (PEOPLE’S STATEMENTS OF READINESS DEEMED ILLUSORY)/STATEMENT OR READINESS (SPEEDY TRIAL, STATEMENTS OF READINESS DEEMED ILLUSORY)

,

WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS NOT OVERWHELMING, COUNTY COURT’S ERROR IN ALLOWING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WHICH THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY PRECLUDED REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL.

The Third Department determined it was reversible error to allow a police officer’s testimony identifying defendant as a person depicted in surveillance video from a store about an hour before the robbery of which defendant was convicted. Defendant claimed he was shopping in the store at the time of the robbery. The evidence of defendant’s participation in the robbery was not overwhelming. The trial judge had ruled the video could be introduced in evidence but no testimony identifying the defendant as a person depicted in the video could be offered. At trial, however, over objection, Cornell, a police officer, was permitted to identify the defendant in the video:

 

… [E]arlier in the proceedings County Court had ruled that, to the extent that the People were going to offer such surveillance footage into evidence, they were precluded from offering testimony identifying defendant in such footage. Cornell then testified on direct examination that he obtained the video surveillance footage from the store where defendant had claimed to have been shopping at the time of the robbery and described a group of five people that entered at approximately 6:20 p.m. and left at approximately 6:45 p.m., approximately one hour before the robbery. Upon the People’s question, “And the group being [defendant], three women and a toddler,” Cornell answered, “That’s correct.” Defendant objected to the question and the answer, which was overruled by County Court. Inasmuch as this testimony violated County Court’s prior ruling because it identified defendant as being the individual in the video who was accompanied by three women and a toddler, it should have been precluded.

Based upon the record before us, County Court’s evidentiary error in permitting Cornell’s identification testimony of defendant in the surveillance video cannot be deemed harmless. Specifically, under the particular factual circumstances of this case, the evidence of defendant’s guilt, although legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, was not overwhelming given the lack of direct evidence linking defendant to the crime and the conflicting witness testimony regarding defendant’s presence at the crime scene … . People v Myrick, 2016 NY Slip Op 00217, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS NOT OVERWHELMING, ALLOWING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY PRECLUDED WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/EVIDENCE (WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS NOT OVERWHELMING, ALLOWING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY PRECLUDED WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)

, ,

SUPPRESSION OF JUVENILE’S PROVIDING FALSE NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH TO POLICE OFFICER PROPERLY DENIED; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION BASED UPON THE FALSE PEDIGREE INFORMATION PROPER.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined suppression of the juvenile’s giving a false name and date of birth when asked for that information by a police officer was properly denied. The juvenile was warned by the officer that providing false pedigree information would result in a false personation charge (a class B misdemeanor). The juvenile was in fact found to have committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute false personation. The court further determined the sentence of probation was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the juvenile’s needs. The dissent focused on the propriety of the sentence. With respect to the denial of the suppression motion, the court explained:

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress her statement to the police, in which she gave a false name and date of birth, resulting in the false personation charge (Penal Law § 190.23). The police had probable cause to believe appellant was a runaway … . The then 14-year-old appellant, who appeared to be as young as 13, was alone in a PATH station in New Jersey, but she vaguely claimed to live in “upstate” New York. In addition, she had a bruised eye and was wearing provocative clothing, suggesting the possibility of some kind of sexual exploitation. The police were entitled to ask pedigree questions without Miranda warnings, even though an officer warned appellant, as required by the false personation statute, that providing false information would result in an additional charge … . Matter of Christy C., 2016 NY Slip Op 00095, 1st Dept 1-12-16

 

,

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH PROHIBITS CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS FROM RESIDING OR TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, DOES NOT IMPOSE PUNISHMENT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE.

The First Department, in an extensive opinion by Justice Gische, over a dissenting opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which prohibits certain sex offenders, including appellant, from residing or traveling within 1000 feet of school grounds, did not violate the federal or state constitutions. Appellant claimed there was no place he could reside in Manhattan, and no way to travel to the places he was required to visit in Manhattan, without violating the statute. SARA was enacted after appellant’s conviction. Appellant argued the statute violated the prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws. The court applied the intent-effects analysis. If the intent of the legislation was to impose punishment, the statute would violate the EX Post Facto prohibition and the court’s inquiry would end. But if the intent was to establish civil proceedings, the court must go on to determine whether the effect of the statute is so punitive as to negate its civil nature. After an extensive analysis, the First Department held the statute was not intended to impose punishment, and the additional restrictions the statute imposed upon appellant, who was already otherwise restricted as a parolee, did not rise to the level of punishment:

 

… [W]hile some factors favor petitioner, overall we do not find the clear proof that is necessary to support a determination that SARA is punitive in its effect. The legislature was not “masking punitive provisions behind the veneer of a civil statute” … . Consequently, we conclude that SARA does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Matter of Williams v Department of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2016 NY Slip Op 00135, 1st Dept 1-12-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT [SARA] (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)

DENIAL OF PAROLE WAS IRRATIONAL; PETITIONER’S PRISON RECORD WAS EXCEPTIONAL UNTIL HIS MEDICATION FOR TREATMENT OF SCHIZOPHRENIA WAS STOPPED.

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s annulment of the Board of Parole’s denial of petitioner’s request for release on parole. Petitioner’s record in prison was exceptional except for a four-month period during which his medication to treat schizophrenia was stopped. Once medication resumed, petitioner once again functioned well:

 

The Board is charged with considering whether “there is a reasonable probability that, if [an] inmate is released, he [or she] will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his [or her] release is not incompatible with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of his [or her] crime as to undermine respect for the law” (Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]). “The decision to grant parole release is discretionary, but the Board is required to consider certain guidelines in making its determination” … . These guidelines include such factors as the inmate’s institutional record, his or her release plans, the seriousness of the offense, and his or her prior criminal record (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A] [i], [iii], [vii], [viii]; 9 NYCRR 8002.3 [a] [1], [3], [7], [8]). In 2011, the law was amended to further require that the Board’s “review must include an instrument that measures rehabilitation and the likelihood of success on parole” (… see Executive Law §§ 259-c [4]; 259-i [2] [c]). The Board utilizes the COMPAS assessment to satisfy this requirement … . * * *

Considering this factual background, we agree with Supreme Court that the Board’s determination was irrational … . Further, it was irrational to such a degree that it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, despite the very limited scope of our review (see Executive Law § 259-i [5]…). As petitioner argues, a fair review of this record compels the conclusion that the determination to remove him from all medication for his mental illness led to a psychotic breakdown that rendered him unable to comply with prison regulations during the period when the disciplinary infractions occurred. To withhold petitioner’s necessary medications was apparently an error of medical judgment. However, for the Board to then rely upon petitioner’s conduct during the psychotic crisis that was thus precipitated as a primary ground for denying his release is so inherently unfair and unreasonable that it meets the high standard of “irrationality bordering on impropriety” warranting our intervention … . To hold otherwise would, in effect, result in punishing petitioner with continued incarceration for the failure of prison officials to provide him with proper treatment for his mental illness — a result that we cannot sanction. Accordingly, we agree with Supreme Court that petitioner must be afforded a de novo hearing before the Board. Matter of Hawthorne v Stanford, 2016 NY Slip Op 00083, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

 

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF PAROLE BASED ON BEHAVIOR WHEN PETITIONER WAS DENIED MEDICATION FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA WAS IRRATIONAL)/PAROLE (DENIAL OF PAROLE BASED ON BEHAVIOR WHEN PETITIONER WAS DENIED MEDICATION FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA WAS IRRATIONAL)/MENTAL ILLNESS (DENIAL OF PAROLE BASED ON BEHAVIOR WHEN PETITIONER WAS DENIED MEDICATION FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA WAS IRRATIONAL)

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