You are here: / Criminal Law

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)

,

SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET, WHICH WAS NOT ON HIS PERSON, AFTER DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND IN CUSTODY VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

The Fourth Department determined the search of the pockets of defendant’s jacket (which was not on his person) after defendant was handcuffed and in custody was illegal under the State Constitution and the drugs found in the pockets should have been suppressed. The court further found that the illegally-seized drugs presented as evidence at trial may have influenced the jury to find an “intent to sell” with respect to the remaining drug count. A new trial was ordered on the remaining count:

After securing the jacket, the officers replaced the handcuffs on defendant and escorted him to the rear seat of their patrol car. One of the officers placed the jacket on the floor of the front seat of the patrol car, where it remained while defendant was transported to the Public Safety Building. Defendant was taken to an interview room, and the jacket was searched in another room at the Public Safety Building. A variety of drugs was discovered in the jacket pockets. * * *

“Under the State Constitution, to justify a warrantless search incident to an arrest, the People must satisfy two separate requirements. The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest . . . The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances” … . We conclude that, here, neither requirement is satisfied. At the time the jacket was searched, defendant was handcuffed in an interview room at the Public Safety Building. “[T]he jacket had been reduced to the exclusive control of the police[,] and there was no reasonable possibility that defendant could have reached it” … . Nor was there any exigency that would justify the warrantless search of the jacket in these circumstances … . People v Wilcox, 2015 NY Slip Op 09457, 4th Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET VIOLATED STATE CONSTITUTION)/EVIDENCE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET VIOLATED STATE CONSTITUTION)/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET VIOLATED STATE CONSTITUTION)

,

EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED; JUDGE FAILED TO ELICIT UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCES OF IMPARTIALITY FROM FIVE PROSPECTIVE JURORS; NOTHING CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS’ COLLECTIVE SILENCE IN RESPONSE TO THE JUDGE’S QUESTION WHETHER THEY COULD BE FAIR.

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial after finding that defendant’s motion to suppress statements and evidence should have been granted. The police entered defendant’s apartment without permission. The People argued that the entry was proper under the so-called emergency exception to the warrant requirement. However, the facts indicated the police entered the apartment solely because of defendant’s refusal to open the door. The Fourth Department further noted that five prospective jurors should have been excused for cause because they all indicated not hearing from the defendant would be problematic for them. The judge explained that the defendant had no responsibility to put on any proof, but failed to elicit an unequivocal assurance from each of the jurors that they could render an impartial verdict. The judge simply asked all the jurors collectively whether they had a problem sitting as fair and impartial jurors and the jurors remained silent:

… [B]ased on our review of the record, we conclude that “the evidence at the suppression hearing [did] not establish that the police had reasonable grounds to believe that there [was] an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property’ ” … . Indeed, the People did not present any evidence that the police observed anything unusual once they arrived at defendant’s apartment. Although the record indicates that defendant and the victim may have been previously involved in domestic disputes, both police officers testified at the suppression hearing that they did not have direct, personal knowledge of any previous domestic violence or any indication that defendant and the victim were engaged in a domestic dispute at the time they arrived at the apartment. The police officers testified only that they knew that defendant was inside the apartment but would not answer the door. In our view, such testimony is insufficient to support a determination that the “emergency exception” applied to justify the warrantless entry.

… Here, the record establishes that five out of the six prospective jurors clearly expressed concerns that not hearing from defendant or someone on behalf of defendant would affect, inter alia, their ability to be fair and impartial. In response, the court instructed the jury panel that defendant has no responsibility to put on any proof, that he may or may not call witnesses, that he may or may not take the witness stand, and that it is the prosecution’s burden to prove the elements of the crimes of which defendant is accused. The court then asked the jury panel whether anyone had “a problem sitting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?” The five prospective jurors at issue remained silent.

In our view, the statements of the five prospective jurors cast serious doubt on their ability to render an impartial verdict … . The court erred in not obtaining thereafter an “unequivocal assurance . . . from each of those potential jurors” to the effect that he or she could render an impartial verdict … . Furthermore, “we can infer nothing from the [collective] silence of the challenged jurors” … . People v Casillas, 2015 NY Slip Op 09454, 4th Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED)/EVIDENCE (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT IMPROPERLY APPLIED, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT (MISAPPLIED)/SUPPRESSION (EMERGENCEY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT MISAPPLIED)/CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE FAILED TO ELICIT ASSURANCES OF IMPARTIALITY)/JURIES (JUDGE FAILED TO ELICIT ASSURANCES OF IMPARTIALITY)

,

SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR WAS AN ILLEGAL STRIP SEARCH.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined what amounted to a strip search at a traffic stop was illegal. The officer searched defendant’s underwear and seized drugs which were inside defendant’s underwear:

… [B]ecause the officer intended to transport defendant to the police station to charge him with the traffic infractions, he was justified in conducting a pat search for weapons before placing defendant in the patrol vehicle … . We note that a person’s underwear, “unlike a waistband or even a jacket pocket, is not a common sanctuary for weapons’ ” …  and, in any event, the officer did not pat the outside of defendant’s clothing to determine whether defendant had secreted a weapon in his underwear after defendant leaned forward. Instead, he conducted a strip search by engaging in a visual inspection of the private area of defendant’s body … . …  We conclude that a visual inspection of the private area of defendant’s body on a city street was not based upon reasonable suspicion that defendant was concealing a weapon or evidence underneath his clothing… . People v Smith, 2015 NY Slip Op 09517, 4th Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR AT TRAFFIC STOP ILLEGAL)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR AT TRAFFIC STOP ILLEGAL)/EVIDENCE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR AT TRAFFIC STOP ILLEGAL)/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR AT TRAFFIC STOP ILLEGAL)

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)

,

DESTRUCTION OF BLOOD EVIDENCE IN FLOODING CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY DID NOT WARRANT AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined that the destruction of blood evidence by Hurricane Sandy did not warrant an adverse inference jury instruction, despite the People’s failure to timely respond to the defense request for the evidence. The court determined that the adverse inference jury instruction is not triggered by a loss of evidence for which the People are blameless:

… [T]he Handy [20 NY3d 663] adverse inference charge is a penalty for destruction of evidence, not for mere tardiness in producing it. …  While we do not condone the People’s slowness in fulfilling their disclosure obligations in this case, the evidence in question was not lost as a foreseeable result of the passage of time, but as a consequence of a natural catastrophe that happened to occur just before this case went to trial. Moreover, the delay in production of the evidence here appears to be as much the fault of the defense as of the People. Even though the defense always knew that the case would rely on DNA evidence, defense counsel, after making a pro forma request to which the physical blood evidence would have been responsive, never took any steps before the hurricane, over a period of approximately two years, to enforce defendant’s right to production of that evidence. As previously noted, the physical evidence did not become a focus of the discussion among the court and counsel until after the hurricane had passed. …

We see no support in the record for the dissent’s position that the physical blood evidence from the crime scene was somehow material to the defense. As previously discussed, while the dissent correctly notes that the match of defendant’s DNA with the DNA in the crime scene evidence was “the lynchpin of the People’s case against defendant,” placing before the jury the physical blood evidence from the crime scene would not have told them anything about the accuracy of the DNA match. Indeed, this appears to have been the original conclusion of defense counsel, who, without ever having had an opportunity to examine the physical evidence, announced that he was “ready to go” to trial before he learned that such evidence was no longer [*4]available. Nothing but speculation supports the dissent’s unlikely supposition that the appearance of the physical blood evidence at trial might have told the jury anything about “the manner of its collection, storage or handling” at the time the State analyzed its DNA, three years before trial. The condition of the physical evidence after the State conducted its analysis is irrelevant, since defendant has never expressed any interest in conducting an independent DNA analysis. People v Austin, 2015 NY Slip Op 09372, 1st Dept 12-22-15

CRIMINAL LAW (DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY, ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE NOT WARRANTED)/JURY INSTRUCTION (ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE NOT WARRANTED, EVIDENCE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY)/EVIDENCE (DESTRUCTION BY HURRICANE SANDY, ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE NOT WARRANTED)/ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (NOT WARRANTED WHERE EVIDENCE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY)

,

EVIDENCE OF HOW THE MURDER VICTIM FELT ABOUT DEFENDANT AND EVIDENCE OF STRIFE IN THE COUPLE’S RELATIONSHIP ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MOTIVE AND IDENTITY.

The First Department determined evidence of how the murder victim felt toward the defendant and evidence of the couple’s “strife and unhappiness” was properly admitted to show the defendant’s motive and was inextricably interwoven with the issue of the identity of the killer:

The court properly admitted testimony from friends of the victim reflecting the victim’s unfavorable perception of defendant’s character, in order to show the victim’s beliefs as part of a showing that the couple had been arguing and that the victim had been attempting to break up with defendant. Proof of the “murder victim’s espoused intention to terminate her relationship with, and stay away from, defendant” was admissible to show the “victim’s state of mind” and was “relevant to the issue of the motive of defendant, who was aware of the victim’s attitude, to kill the victim” … . Hence, the background information about the couple’s “strife and unhappiness” was admissible as “highly probative of the defendant’s motive and [was] either directly related to or inextricably interwoven with the issue of his identity as the killer” … . The friends’ testimony about disputes between defendant and the victim was similarly admissible … . People v Brooks, 2015 NY Slip Op 09379, 1st Dept 12-22-15

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF MURDER VICTIM’S STATE OF MIND AND STRIFE BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND VICTIM ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MOTIVE AND IDENTITY)/EVIDENCE (MURDER VICTIM’S STATE OF MIND AND STRIFE BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND VICTIM ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MOTIVE AND IDENTITY); PRIOR BAD ACTS (STRIFE IN RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND MURDER VICTIM ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE AND IDENTITY)

“TRIAL PREPARATION” EXCEPTION TO A DETERMINATION WHETHER A PHOTOGRAPHIC DISPLAY IS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE, IN THE FORM OF A HERNER HEARING, SHOULD NO LONGER BE EMPLOYED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Lippman, held that the “trial preparation” exception to a determination whether a photographic display is unduly suggestive, in the form of a Herner hearing, should no longer be employed. The complainant was shown a photograph of the defendant shortly before trial, ostensibly as part of “trial preparation.” Defense counsel asked for a full-fledged Wade hearing to determine whether the single-photograph-showing was unduly suggestive.  Instead only a Herner hearing was held to determine if a judicial determination of suggestiveness was needed. The trial court determined no judicial determination of suggestiveness was necessary. Although the Court of Appeals found the trial court erred in not conducting a full Wade hearing, it further found the complainant’s identification of defendant was otherwise validated by an “independent source.” The dissent disagreed and argued the conviction should be reversed:

Defendant claims that the trial preparation exception recognized in Herner is inconsistent with New York’s approach to suggestive pre-trial identifications. We agree. By employing this truncated hearing protocol, the court failed to reach the essential question whether the photograph display was unduly suggestive, and, if so, whether it tainted complainant’s identification of defendant. When a defendant challenges the suggestiveness of an out-of-court viewing of defendant’s likeness, the central issue presented for judicial consideration is whether the pre-trial display is conducted under circumstances bearing the earmarks of improper influence and unreliability, which create the risk of mistaken identification and thus infect the truth-seeking process. People v Marshall, 2015 NY Slip Op 09313, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (TRIAL PREPARATION EXCEPTION TO WADE HEARING REJECTED)/IDENTIFICATION (TRIAL PREPARATION EXCEPTION TO WADE HEARING REJECTED)/HERNER HEARING (TRIAL PREPARATION EXCEPTION TO WADE HEARING REJECTED)/WADE HEARING (TRIAL PREPARATION EXCEPTION TO WADE HEARING REJECTED)

, , ,

WHERE NO NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED, A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL EXPIRES.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, determined a judgment of conviction and sentence becomes final when the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal expires (where no notice is filed). Here the issue was whether the defendant could move to vacate his conviction by guilty plea because he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the plea. Because the motion to vacate would not be available if defendant’s conviction and sentence became final before Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356) was decided (requiring that a defendant be informed of deportation consequence of a plea), the date of finality was determinative. If the finality date is 30 days after conviction and sentence, defendant’s conviction and sentence would have been final before Padilla was decided. If, as defendant argued, the conviction and sentence became final one year and 30 days after the conviction and sentence, when the time for moving to file a late notice of appeal expired, defendant’s conviction and sentence would not have been final before Padilla was decided. Because the Court of Appeals decided the conviction and sentence became final when no notice of appeal was filed within 30 days, defendant could not move to vacate his conviction:

Adopting defendant’s reasoning would result in uncertainty in the finality of judgments in many procedural situations. For example, a defendant who takes a direct appeal to the Appellate Division but does not seek leave to appeal to this Court in a timely fashion could argue that the judgment was not final until one year and 30 days after the Appellate Division affirmance, inasmuch as the defendant could have sought leave from this Court to file a belated application for discretionary review pursuant to CPL 460.30 (1). Or, a defendant who has filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division but has had the appeal dismissed due to failure to perfect could argue that the judgment is not yet final, inasmuch as the defendant could ask the Appellate Division to vacate the dismissal of the appeal.

Indeed, if we adopt defendant’s logic, other defendants who did not take a direct appeal conceivably could argue that their judgments were never final, inasmuch as they could seek to file a late notice of appeal even after the one-year grace period of CPL 460.30 has expired by moving for a writ of error coram nobis … . People v Varenga, 2015 NY Slip Op 09312, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (WHERE NO NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED, A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL EXPIRES)/JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (BECOMES FINAL UPON EXPIRATION OF 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL)

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