You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Criteria for a Warrantless Blood Swab

In affirming defendant’s murder conviction, the Fourth Department noted that a swab of a blood stain on defendant’s body was properly taken without a warrant. The DNA in the swab matched the victim’s. The court explained the criteria for a warrantless swab:

Defendant agreed to give his clothing to the police and, when he removed his shirt, an officer noticed a reddish brown stain on defendant’s chest that appeared to be blood. When asked what it was, defendant responded that it was a bruise. The officer swabbed the area, which later tested positive for blood and matched the victim’s DNA. Where, as here, the police did not obtain a warrant for the seizure of the blood evidence, “the police had to satisfy two requirements in order to justify the action taken. First, the police had to have reasonable cause to believe the [blood stain] constituted evidence, or tended to demonstrate that an offense had been committed, or, that a particular person participated in the commission of an offense . . . Second, there had to have been an exigent circumstance of sufficient magnitude to justify immediate seizure without resort to a warrant” … . We agree with the court that the police had reasonable cause to believe that the blood stain on defendant’s chest constituted evidence, and that the seizure was appropriate because it could have been easily destroyed by defendant … . People v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 08540, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

,

Erroneous Admission of Evidence of Specific Prior Crimes and Bad Acts Required Reversal

The Fourth Department determined evidence of prior crimes and bad acts on the part of the defendant (which took place just prior to defendant’s arrest) were properly admitted to provide background information explaining the actions taken by the police. But other evidence of defendant’s prior crimes and bad acts should not have been admitted and the errors warranted a new trial:

… [A]lthough the court properly permitted the People to present evidence of the fact that he was on parole at the time of his arrest, the court erred in permitting the People to detail that he was on parole for a conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The specific crime of which defendant was convicted does not constitute necessary background information, and it does not fit within any other recognized exception to the Molineux rule, i.e., motive, intent, identity, absence of mistake, or common plan or scheme … .

… [T]he court erred in ruling that defense counsel [in cross-examining a police officer] opened the door to the admission of additional evidence of uncharged crimes and prior bad acts that the court had initially precluded by an earlier determination. * * *

…[D]efense counsel did not challenge on cross-examination the officer’s credibility on the issue whether such prior interactions with defendant took place, thereby permitting the officer to fully explain the nature of the interactions… . People v Dowdell, 2015 NY Slip Op 08567, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

,

Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication Can Not Be Used for the “Criminal History” Points Assessment

The sex offender risk classification was reversed because county court used a juvenile delinquency adjudication to calculate the “criminal history” points to be assessed. The Third Department noted that the juvenile delinquency adjudication cannot be used for the “criminal history” calculation, but it can be considered in determining whether to depart from the recommended risk level:

… [B]ased on our recent holding in People v Shaffer (129 AD3d 54, 55-56 [2015]), County Court is precluded from using juvenile delinquency adjudications to assess points for criminal history under the RAI [risk assessment instrument], although the facts underlying a juvenile delinquency adjudication may still be “considered when determining whether to depart from the recommended risk level” (id. at 56). People v Updyke, 2015 NY Slip Op 08481, 3rd Dept 11-19-15

 

,

Defendant Implicitly Consented to a Mistrial on Two of Three Counts by Requesting a Partial Verdict

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the defendant, by requesting a partial verdict on the count on which the jury had reached a verdict, had consented to a mistrial on the two remaining counts and, therefore, had waived double jeopardy protection for those two counts:

After one juror was found unable to serve, defendant refused to substitute an alternate juror and requested a partial verdict on the one count on which the jury had indicated it had reached a verdict. The Appellate Division granted the [defendant’s] petition [prohibiting retrial] on the basis that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial and did not address the issue of consent. Because defendant implicitly consented to a mistrial on two of three counts by requesting a partial verdict and by saying nothing about the court’s plans for retrial … , we need not reach the issue of manifest necessity. Matter of Gentil v Margulis, 2015 NY Slip Op 08455, CtApp 11-19-15

 

Use of Stolen New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) Key to Allow Persons to Enter the Subway System for a Small Fee Deprived the NYCTA of Its Property and Therefore Constituted Petit Larceny

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, determined the misdemeanor information adequately alleged petit larceny based upon the defendant’s use of a stolen New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) key to allow two people to enter the subway system in return for a small fee. The issue was whether the information alleged that the NYCTA was the “owner” of the fees paid to the defendant. The case turned on distinguishing People v Hightower (18 NY3d 249) where the court held the use of a legally purchased MetroCard to swipe persons through a subway turnstile (for a fee) did not constitute petit larceny because the NYCTA did not own the card and therefore no property was taken from the NYCTA. The fact that the NYCTA key was stolen was the distinguishing factor. The dissent, however, did not see the distinction. The majority wrote:

… [T]he information adequately alleged all the elements of a larceny in setting forth defendant’s unauthorized use of the illegally-obtained key to allow the undercover officers to enter through the emergency exit gate in exchange for money, thereby depriving the NYCTA, as the owner, of its property. People v Matthew P., 2015 NY Slip Op 08454, CtApp 11-19-15

 

,

Enhanced Sentencing for Second Child Sexual Assault Felony Offenders Is Required by Penal Law 70.07; Language in Criminal Procedure Law 400.19 Can Not Be Interpreted to Mean the People Can Decide Not to Seek the Enhanced Sentence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, in affirming defendant’s conviction and sentencing, discussed ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, and statutory interpretation issues. The ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct discussions are fact-specific and not summarized here. With respect to the statutory interpretation issue, the defendant argued he should not have been sentenced as a second child sexual assault felony offender because the People were required to file a predicate statement (notifying him an enhanced sentence would be sought) prior to trial and did not do so. The court determined the statutory language indicating the predicate statement “may” be filed any time before trial (in Criminal Procedure Law [CPL] 400.19) did not preclude the People from filing the statement after trial started, and did not indicate the People had the discretion not to seek an enhanced sentence:

The explicit language in section one [of Penal Law 70.07] states that a person convicted of a felony offense for sexual assault against a child, who has a predicate felony conviction for child sexual assault, “must be sentenced” in accordance with Penal Law § 70.07 sentencing provisions. The applicable time for invoking the procedures contained in CPL 400.19 does not change the import of the mandatory language in Penal Law § 70.07, which subjects this category of offenders to legislatively promulgated enhanced sentences. Furthermore, the specific language in CPL 400.19 (2) upon which defendant relies merely permits filing of the statement before commencement of a trial. It does not prohibit filing afterwards, and before sentencing. As courts have concluded, “may” does not mean “must” … . Notwithstanding defendant’s requests that we read the statute otherwise, this Court is without authority to read mandatory language into a statute where it is otherwise absent … . People v Wragg, 2015 NY Slip Op 08453, CtApp 11-19-15

 

Where Defendant Was Released on a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Relevant Period of Incarceration Can Not Be Excluded from the Ten-Year Second Violent Felony Offender Calculation; Without That Exclusion, Defendant Could Not Be Sentenced as a Second Felon

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined (1) Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 120.90, requiring a quick arraignment after arrest, only applies where the defendant is arrested by police officers (here corrections officers told defendant of his arrest); (2) CPL 190.50, requiring notice of a grand jury presentation, does not apply where defendant has not been arraigned in a local court; and (3) the 442 days defendant was incarcerated for a parole violation could not be excluded from the ten-year “second violent felony offender” calculation because he was released from that incarceration on a writ of habeas corpus. Without that 442-day exclusion, defendant’s prior conviction was older than ten years and he could not be sentenced as a second felon:

A defendant who stands convicted of a violent felony may be adjudicated a second violent felony offender if he was previously convicted of a violent felony within ten years of the current offense (see Penal Law § 70.04[1][b][iv]). “[A]ny period of time during which the person was incarcerated for any reason between the time of commission of the previous felony and the time of commission of the present felony” is excluded from the ten-year calculation (Penal Law § 70.04[1][b][v]). * * *

Although the habeas court did not vacate defendant’s conviction for a parole violation, it did grant his immediate release from confinement after determining that “the evidence did not support” defendant’s incarceration. A person “illegally imprisoned or otherwise restrained in his liberty . . . may petition without notice for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such detention and for deliverance” (CPLR 7002[a]). If a judge considering the habeas petition determines that a person has been unlawfully detained, he “shall . . . issue a writ of habeas corpus for the relief of that person” (id.). That the habeas court in this case granted defendant’s immediate release based on a lack of evidence indicates that defendant was “imprisoned without reason” from 1992-1993. People v Small, 2015 NY Slip Op 08457, CtApp 11-19-15

 

Presumption of Vindictive Sentencing Did Not Apply Here Where Defendant Rejected a Plea Offer with a Sentence of Ten Years Probation and, After Trial, Was Sentenced to 10 to 20 Years in Prison

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined defendant was not entitled to the presumption of vindictive sentencing. Defendant, in this rape case, was offered a plea to a D felony and 10 years probation. The defendant went to trial and was sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison. The court explained that the presumption of vindictive sentencing, which has been applied to sentencing upon retrial after a successful appeal, did not apply in this case:

“[C]riminal defendants should not be penalized for exercising their right to appeal” … . After a new trial, the sentencing court must give affirmative reasons “concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding” to justify a higher sentence … . * * *

By contrast, the same policy concerns are not implicated when a defendant rejects a plea offer, proceeds to trial for the first time, and is given a harsher sentence than the plea offer.

“Given that the quid pro quo of the bargaining process will almost necessarily involve offers to moderate sentences that ordinarily would be greater, it is also to be anticipated that sentences handed out after trial may be more severe than those proposed in connection with a plea” (People v Pena , 50 NY2d 400, 412 … ). In Pena , this Court concluded that the defendant was not punished by the imposition of the lawful, but greater, sentence received after rejecting a lenient plea offer and proceeding to trial.

Here, after hearing the court’s warning that he would not receive such leniency should he be found guilty, defendant rejected the plea offer and proceeded to trial. Supreme Court imposed a lawful sentence, based upon defendant’s remorseless statement at the sentencing hearing, the heinous nature of the crimes, and the victim’s sentencing statement. Furthermore, the plea offer would have required defendant to plead guilty to a class D felony, whereas defendant was convicted after trial of a class B violent felony offense for which the court could not have legally imposed the probationary sentence offered with respect to the plea. Defendant’s rejection of the plea offer also required the victim to testify about the sexual abuse at trial, a factor this Court has recognized as a legitimate basis for the imposition of a more severe sentence after trial than that which the defendant would have received upon a plea of guilty … . Had the presumption of vindictiveness applied to this case, these would constitute legitimate and reasoned bases for the more severe sentence imposed … . People v Martinez, 2015 NY Slip Op 08456, CtApp 11-19-15

 

Evidence Supported Conviction of Police Officer for Divulging an Eavesdropping Warrant

The First Department determined the evidence supported the conviction of a police officer for divulging the existence of an eavesdropping warrant. The warrant was issued in connection with an investigation of corrupt police officers. Defendant warned police officers about the warrant and cautioned them to be careful on the phone:

Penal Law § 250.20 states as follows: “A person is guilty of divulging an eavesdropping warrant when, possessing information concerning the existence or content of an eavesdropping warrant . . . , he discloses such information to another person . . .” The trial court, prior to rendering its verdict, explained that “knowledge, actual knowledge, is required[,]” and rejected the People’s argument that mere rumor would be enough to satisfy the requirements for the divulging count. On appeal, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that defendant divulged information concerning the existence and content of an eavesdropping warrant … , and we see no reason to set the verdict aside as against the weight of the evidence … . People v Cobb, 2015 NY Slip Op 08498, 1st Dept 11-19-15

 

,

Defendant’s Statement Was Circumstantial Evidence of the Taking Element of Grand Larceny Because an Innocent Inference from the Statement Was Possible; Video Surveillance Was Direct Evidence of the Taking Element Despite Defendant’s “Innocent” Explanation of His Actions

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined video surveillance showing defendant first hiding and then rifling through the victim's purse was direct, not circumstantial, evidence of the taking element of grand larceny (despite the defendant's non-criminal explanation of his actions). The court also determined the defendant's statement “I don't have it, but I can get it” (made when asked about the purse) was circumstantial evidence of the taking element because an innocent explanation for having the purse could be inferred from the statement. Because both direct and circumstantial evidence of grand larceny was presented, the circumstantial-evidence jury instruction was not required:

It is well settled that a trial court must grant a defendant's request for a circumstantial evidence charge when the proof of the defendant's guilt rests solely on circumstantial evidence … . By contrast, where there is both direct and circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt, such a charge need not be given … .

We agree with defendant that his statement to the prosecution witness that he did not have the purse but could get it was not direct evidence of his guilt. A defendant's statement is direct evidence only “if it constitutes 'a relevant admission of guilt' ” … . * * *

Here, defendant's statement — that he did not have the purse but could get it — was not a direct admission of his guilt of larceny. Rather, defendant's statement was also consistent with an inference that although he did not steal the purse, he knew where the purse was located and thought he could obtain it. Inasmuch as his statement merely included inculpatory facts from which the jury may or may not have inferred guilt, his statement was circumstantial rather than direct evidence … .

We agree with the People, however, that the surveillance video constituted direct evidence of defendant's guilt of larceny. The “taking” element of larceny “is satisfied by a showing that the thief exercised dominion and control over the property for a period of time, however temporary, in a manner wholly inconsistent with the owner's continued rights” … . People v Hardy, 2015 NY Slip Op 08369, CtApp 11-18-15


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