You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION (CONVICTION NOT REVERSED HOWEVER); INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO SUPPORT ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION.

The Fourth Department admonished the prosecutor for improper remarks in summation, but did not reverse the conviction. The court found the evidence of “physical injury” insufficient to support the Assault 3rd conviction and reversed that unpreserved error under a “weight of the evidence” analysis:

Despite this Court’s repeated admonitions to prosecutors not to engage in misconduct during summation, the prosecutor improperly referred to facts not in evidence when he insinuated that the victim regretted that she did not get out of defendant’s vehicle … . The prosecutor also improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy and bolstered the victim’s credibility, and did so repeatedly, by commenting on how difficult it was for her to recount her ordeal, first to the police, then before the grand jury, and finally in her trial testimony … . In addition, the prosecutor improperly suggested that the jury experiment on themselves to see how quickly bite marks fade … . Nevertheless, “[a]lthough we do not condone the prosecutor’s conduct, it cannot be said here that it caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he has been denied due process of law’ ” … . We admonish the prosecutor, however, “and remind him that prosecutors have special responsibilities . . . to safeguard the integrity of criminal proceedings and fairness in the criminal process’ ” … . * * *

We conclude, upon our independent review of the evidence, that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim sustained a physical injury … . The indictment alleged that defendant caused physical injury to the victim “by striking her in the face.” Although the victim testified that defendant struck her in the face, and photographs of the victim showed swelling and discoloration of the left side of her face, the victim did not testify that she suffered substantial pain from that injury or that she sought medical attention for it … . People v Gibson, 2015 NY Slip Op 09722, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION)/CRIMINAL LAW (ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION)/EVIDENCE (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY RE: ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION)/ASSAULT 3RD (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY)

, ,

STATEMENT MADE AFTER UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial after concluding defendant’s statements to police should have been suppressed. After defendant told police she needed to talk to a lawyer, the police questioned her further during a “smoke break:”

After answering questions for approximately an hour and ten minutes, defendant said, “I think I need to talk to an attorney.” In response, the first investigator stated, “Would you like to talk to one? If you think that, that’s fine. That’s up to you.” Defendant replied, “I need to,” before going on to state that she would never have bad feelings toward the boy and genuinely cared about him. The questioning then ceased, and the first investigator allowed defendant to go outside with the second investigator and a female Child Protective Services worker to smoke a cigarette.

While defendant was smoking in the parking garage, the second investigator engaged her in a lengthy conversation. Unbeknownst to defendant, the conversation was being digitally recorded by the second investigator. During the conversation, defendant made numerous admissions, all but confessing that she had engaged in sexual activity with the boy. * * *

… [W]e conclude that, although defendant’s statement “I think I need to talk to an attorney” may not, standing alone, constitute an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel … , her subsequent statement “I need to”—made in reply to the first investigator stating “Would you like to talk to one? If you think that, that’s fine. That’s up to you”—removed any ambiguity and made clear that defendant was requesting the assistance of counsel … . People v Kennard, 2015 NY Slip Op 09729, 4th Dept 12-31-15

 

,

PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS IN SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department, in the interest of justice, reversed defendant’s conviction based upon prosecutorial misconduct in summation:

On summation, the prosecutor repeatedly invoked a “safe streets” argument … , even after Supreme Court sustained defense counsel’s objection to the prosecutor’s use of that argument; denigrated the defense by calling defense counsel’s arguments “garbage,” “smoke and mirrors,” and “nonsense” intended to distract the juror’s focus from the “atrocious acts” that defendant committed against the victim … ; improperly characterized the defense as being based on a “big conspiracy” against defendant by the prosecutor and the People’s witnesses … ; and denigrated the fact that defendant had elected to invoke his constitutional right to a trial … . Perhaps most egregiously, given that “the potential danger posed to defendant when DNA evidence is presented as dispositive of guilt is by now obvious,” the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when she mischaracterized and overstated the probative value of the DNA evidence in this case … .

We recognize, of course, that “[r]eversal is an ill-suited remedy for prosecutorial misconduct” … . It is nevertheless mandated when the conduct of the prosecutor “has caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he [or she] has been denied due process of law. In measuring whether substantial prejudice has occurred, one must look at the severity and frequency of the conduct, whether the court took appropriate action to dilute the effect of that conduct, and whether review of the evidence indicates that without the conduct the same result would undoubtedly have been reached” … . In view of the substantial prejudice caused by the prosecutor’s misconduct in this case, including the fact that the evidence of guilt is less than overwhelming … , we agree with defendant that reversal is required. People v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 09773, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS IN SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (REMARKS IN SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL)

, ,

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT IN AN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A TRIABLE ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING PETITIONER’S ABILITY TO CONTROL HIS SEXUAL CONDUCT.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner-sex-offender’s motion for a directed verdict in an Article 10 trial should not have been granted. Petitioner had been deemed a dangerous sex offender and was committed to a secure facility. In the instant proceeding, petitioner sought release under a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment. The state presented evidence petitioner had been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, paraphila otherwise specified, and cannabis dependence.  The majority concluded that the state’s expert, Dr. Prince, had presented sufficient additional evidence, including a history of defendant’s sexual behavior, his response to treatment, and the results of psychological tests, to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had serious difficulty in controlling difficulty controlling his sexual conduct:

When coupled with the evidence of petitioner’s clear, well-defined cycle of offending that begins with becoming frustrated, the deficits in his recent treatment plan on that specific area, and his stagnating course of treatment, we conclude that Dr. Prince’s opinion and the supporting evidence, ” when viewed in light of such features of the case as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis, and the severity of the mental abnormality itself, [establish that petitioner is a] . . . dangerous sexual offender whose serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjects him to civil commitment[, rather than a] dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case’ ” … . Thus, respondents submitted sufficient evidence that, if it is credited by the factfinder, would establish that petitioner has a condition, disease or disorder “that predisposes him . . . to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in [petitioner] having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (§ 10.03 [i] …). Consequently, we conclude that, if the factfinder accepts that evidence, there is a “rational process by which the [factfinder] could find for [respondents] as against” petitioner … . Matter of Wright v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09711, 4th Dept 12-31-15

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER HAD SERIOUS DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING SEXUAL CONDUCT)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER HAD SERIOUS DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING SEXUAL CONDUCT)

, ,

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA REQUIRED THAT HE BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS CASE MANDATING AN EXPLANATION OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT’S PLEA.

The Second Department determined defendant should be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea because he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the plea. Although the Court of Appeals case requiring that the deportation consequences be explained came down after defendant’s plea, the issue was properly raised on defendant’s direct appeal:

Relying upon People v Peque (22 NY3d 168) the defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because the plea record demonstrates that the court never advised him of the possibility that he would be deported as a consequence of his plea. In Peque, the Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of “fundamental fairness,” due process requires that a court apprise a noncitizen pleading guilty to a felony of the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the plea of guilty (id. at 193). A defendant seeking to vacate a plea based on this defect must establish that there is a “reasonable probability” that he or she would not have pleaded guilty and would instead have gone to trial had the court warned of the possibility of deportation (id. at 176, 198).

As a threshold matter, we disagree with the People’s contention that Peque should only apply prospectively. Inasmuch as Peque, decided after the defendant’s plea, involved federal constitutional principles, it must be applied to this direct appeal … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the record does not demonstrate either that the Supreme Court mentioned, or that the defendant was otherwise aware of, the possibility of deportation. Therefore, the defendant’s claim is not subject to the requirement of preservation … . People v Odle, 2015 NY Slip Op 09699, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF GUILTY PLEA ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW PLEA)/DEPORTATION (DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF GUILTY PLEA, ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW PLEA)

SENTENCING COURT’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS REQUIRED VACATION OF SENTENCE.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court’s failure to consider whether defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender required vacation of the sentence, despite the fact defendant did not request youthful offender status:

In People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497, 499), the Court of Appeals held that compliance with CPL 720.20(1), which provides that the sentencing court “must” determine whether an eligible defendant is to be treated as a youthful offender, “cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request.” Compliance with CPL 720.20(1) requires the sentencing court to actually consider and make an independent determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment … . Here, the Supreme Court did not place on the record any reason for not adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender on his conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 9960/10, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it considered and made an actual determination as to whether the defendant should be granted youthful offender treatment for his conviction under that indictment … . Under these circumstances, we vacate the defendant’s sentence and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment. People v Worrell, 2015 NY Slip Op 09706, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS REQUIRED VACATION OF SENTENCE)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION REQUIRED VACATION OF SENTENCE)/SENTENCING (FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION REQUIRED VACATION OF SENTENCE)

PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO JURY INSTRUCTION WHICH (UNNECESSARILY) INCREASED THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED THE PEOPLE TO MEET THAT BURDEN.

The Second Department determined that People’s failure to object to the judge’s instruction to the jury, which increased the People’s burden of proof, required that the People meet that burden (which the People failed to do). The defendant was charged with first degree robbery. Two victims, Brandt and Bishop, were ordered to lie on the ground at gunpoint. Brandt was shot when he didn’t lie down and later died. Property was taken from Bishop, but not from Brandt. In the charge to the jury, the judge stated that, in order to convict the defendant of first degree robbery, the jury must find property was forcibly taken from Brandt. The People did not object:

As the People correctly concede, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of robbery in the first degree under Penal Law § 160.15(1), as that crime was charged to the jury. As relevant here, “[a] person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when he forcibly steals property and when, in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime . . . [c]auses serious physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime” (Penal Law § 160.15[1]). In this case, the Supreme Court instructed the jurors, without objection, that to find the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree, they had to find, inter alia, that the defendant, acting in concert with at least one other individual, forcibly stole property from Brandt. Where, as here, “the trial court’s instructions to the jury increase the People’s burden, and the People fail to object, they must satisfy the heavier burden” … . Inasmuch as the evidence demonstrated that property was only taken from Bishop, the People failed to satisfy their burden as to the count of robbery in the first degree. Although the defendant’s legal sufficiency claim as to this count is unpreserved for appellate review, we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … . People v Rose, 2015 NY Slip Op 09702, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO JURY CHARGE WHICH INCREASED THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED THEM TO MEET THAT BURDEN)/JURY INSTRUCTION (PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO JURY CHARGE WHICH INCREASED THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED THEM TO MEET THAT BURDEN)/BURDEN OF PROOF, CRIMINAL (PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO JURY CHARGE WHICH INCREASED THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED THEM TO MEET THAT BURDEN)

53-MONTH PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT DENY DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS.

The Fourth Department determined a 53-month delay between the incident and indictment did not constitute a denial of due process. Defendant was charged with burglary, robbery and criminal possession of a weapon. He was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon. The court explained the analytical criteria re: speedy trial/due process and went through the facts in support of each of the criteria:

“A defendant’s right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by both the Constitution … and by statute … . A defendant may also challenge, on due process grounds, preindictment delay …, and “the factors utilized to determine if a defendant’s rights have been abridged are the same whether the right asserted is a speedy trial right or the due process right to prompt prosecution” … . The inquiry involves weighing the factors enunciated in Taranovich: “(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay” (Taranovich, 37 NY2d at 445…). “Generally when there has been a protracted delay, certainly over a period of years, the burden is on the prosecution to establish good cause” … . People v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 09449, 4th Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (53-MONTH PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT DENY DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS)/SPEEDY TRIAL (53-MONTH PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT DENY DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS)/PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY (53-MONTH DELAY DID NOT DENY DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS)

FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department determined the trial judge’s failure to apprise counsel of the specific, substantive contents of a jury note requesting a readback of testimony required reversal (in the absence of preservation):

As the court brought the jury into the courtroom to respond to the first two notes, the jury gave a third note to the court. The court told the jury that it would respond to the first two notes at that time, and would then discuss the issue raised in the third note with counsel after sending the jury back to the jury room. The court stated that the “third note [had] not yet [been] shown to counsel nor have we had an opportunity to discuss it.” The record further reflects that the jury resumed its deliberations after the court provided requested testimony and instruction in response to the first two notes, and then rendered a verdict of guilty. The third note, which is included in the record, indicates that the jury was seeking the testimony of a particular witness on a specific topic, but there is nothing in the record indicating that the note was shown to counsel, or that it was read into the record before the jury rendered its verdict. Where, as here, “the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note . . . [,] preservation is not required” … , and we conclude that the “[c]ourt committed reversible error by violating the core requirements of CPL 310.30 in failing to advise counsel on the record of the contents of a substantive jury note before accepting a verdict” … . People v Brink, 2015 NY Slip Op 09450, 4th Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF JURY NOTE CONTENTS REQUIRED REVERSAL)/JURY NOTE (FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF CONTENTS REQUIRED REVERSAL)/ORAMA ERROR (FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF CONTENTS OF JURY NOTE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION)

,

SEARCH OF JACKET POCKET NOT PRECEDED BY PAT DOWN SEARCH; SEIZURE OF WEAPON FROM JACKET POCKET NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence taken during a search of his jacket should have been granted. The searching officer had the right to pat the defendant down for weapons but did not do so. The search of the pockets, which turned up a weapon, was not, therefore, supported by probable cause:

The search of the defendant’s right jacket pocket, from which the police recovered a gun, cannot be upheld as justifiably premised on probable cause, since the defendant had not been placed under arrest prior to the search … . “[A]n officer who reasonably suspects that a detainee is armed may conduct a frisk or take other protective measures even in the absence of probable cause to arrest” … . However, “[a] police officer acting on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and on an articulable basis to fear for his own safety may intrude upon the person or personal effects of the suspect only to the extent that is actually necessary to protect himself from harm while he conducts the inquiry” … . “The key question in all cases remains whether the protective measures taken by the officer were reasonable under the circumstances” … .

Here, the police officer searched the defendant’s jacket pocket without any prior visual observations of a weapon and without first conducting a pat down of the outside of the pocket. Thus, even assuming that the officer acted on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and an articulable basis to fear for his safety, he failed to confine the scope of his search to an intrusion reasonably necessary to protect himself from harm. Accordingly, the weapon recovered as a result of the unlawful search should have been suppressed. In addition, the drugs and other items thereafter recovered must also be suppressed as fruits of the initial, unlawful search … . People v Graham, 2015 NY Slip Op 09442, 2nd Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF JACKET POCKET NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE)/EVIDENCE (SEARCH OF JACKET POCKET NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE)/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH OF JACKET POCKET NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF JACKET POCKET NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE)

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