You are here: / Criminal Law

SEVEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN ARREST AND INDICTMENT DID NOT VIOLATE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found that the seven-year delay between defendant’s arrest and indictment did not violate defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The court explained the relevant law:

A defendant’s right to a speedy trial is guaranteed both by the United States Constitution … . Moreover, an unjustified delay in prosecution will deprive a defendant of the State constitutional right to due process … . However, “a determination made in good faith to delay prosecution for sufficient reasons will not deprive defendant of due process even though there may be some prejudice to defendant” … . Where there has been extended delay, the People have the burden to establish good cause … .

In determining whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the Court of Appeals has articulated five factors to be considered: (1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charges; (4) any extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) any impairment of the defendant’s defense … . These factors apply as well to the due process guarantee … . “In this State, we have never drawn a fine distinction between due process and speedy trial standards’ when dealing with delays in prosecution” … . People v Allen, 2015 NY Slip Op 08850, 2nd Dept 12-2-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SPEEDY TRIAL, SEVEN YEARS BETWEEN ARREST AND INDICTMENT)/SPEEDY TRIAL (SEVEN YEARS BETWEEN ARREST AND INDICTMENT)

17-YEAR DELAY ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED, SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHT NOT VIOLATED.

The Third Department determined a 17-year delay between the act a defendant’s indictment did not violate his right to a speedy trial. Several years of the delay were attributed to the ability to test DNA without destroying it (not available at the time of the offense, 1994). In addition, a witness came forward in 2011. The court explained the applicable law:

“In determining whether there is an undue delay, the trial court must consider ‘(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'” … . Where, as here, the delay is extraordinary, “close scrutiny of the other factors, especially the question of why the delay occurred,” is required … .

The People introduced evidence indicating that DNA technology in 1994 would have required the destruction of the two samples of biological material that had been collected. Further evidence established that technology at the time that the samples were tested — in 2004 and 2011 — did not require such destruction. In addition to this physical evidence becoming probative, a witness came forward in May 2011 implicating defendant in the murder. Such evidence demonstrated a good faith basis for the delay in proceeding with the prosecution … .

Turning to the remaining factors, the charge of murder in the second degree is “inarguably a very serious offense” … . Further, defendant was never incarcerated during the 17-year delay … . In addition, defendant’s generic claim that witnesses may have moved and that their recall of events is no longer as strong as it once was is too speculative to carry significant weight in the analysis … . Although defendant faced a substantial delay, upon considering these factors, we find that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated … . People v Chaplin, 2015 NY Slip Op 08869, 2nd Dept 12-2-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SPEEDY TRIAL, 17-YEAR DELAY)/SPEEDY TRIAL (17-YEAR DELAY)

O’RAMA-PROCEDURE ERRORS WERE NOT MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERRORS AND WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW BY OBJECTIONS.

The First Department determined that the O’Rama-procedure errors made by the trial judge did not rise to the level of “mode of proceedings” errors and were not preserved for appeal by objection. The note was read essentially verbatim in open court, but the judge did not give counsel advance notice of the contents of the note and did not give the parties the chance for input re: the response:

The trial court’s handling of the note sent out by the jury during deliberations did not constitute a mode of proceedings error … . The note contained two questions and two requests for exhibits. While the court initially read only the first substantive question into the record in the presence of counsel before the jury was brought into the courtroom, once the jury was brought in, the court read the remainder of the note aloud, essentially verbatim, stopping at the end of each of the four parts to provide its response. Although the court did not inform counsel in advance about the entirety of the note or give the parties any opportunity for input into the court’s proposed responses, by reading the full contents of the note in the presence of the parties and the jury, the court satisfied its core responsibility … . People v Ramirez, 2015 NY Slip Op 08772, 1st Dept 12-1-15

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY NOTES, O’RAMA ERROR NOT PRESERVED)/JURY NOTES (O’RAMA ERROR NOT PRESERVED)

MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR TO PARAPHRASE SUBSTANTIVE JURY NOTE.

The First Department determined the trial judge’s paraphrasing a substantive jury note, rather than reading it into the record verbatim, was a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal:

By only paraphrasing some of the content of the third note, and failing to read the precise content of the that note into the record verbatim at any time, the court violated the procedures set forth in People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]), more recently reiterated in People v Nealon ( __ NY3d __ , 2015 NY Slip Op 07781 [2015]) … ). A court does not satisfy its responsibility to provide counsel with meaningful notice of a jury’s substantive inquiry by summarizing the substance of the jurors’ note … . The … note, which was a substantive jury inquiry, should not have been paraphrased, but read in its entirety so that counsel had meaningful notice of its contents and, therefore, an opportunity to formulate a proposed response. Although counsel did not object to how the court handled the … note, the court’s failure to read this substantive note into the record verbatim, is a “mode of proceedings error,” and given this departure, counsel was not required to object to it in order to preserve any claim of error for appellate review … . People v Lane, 2015 NY Slip Op 08771, 1st Dept 12-1-15

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY NOTES, PARAPHRASING  JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR)/JURY NOTES (PARAPHRASING NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR)/MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR (PARAPHRASING JURY NOTE)

CONVICTION IN VIOLATION OF CATU CAN NOT BE USED AS PREDICATE FOR SENTENCING

The First Department determined the failure to mention the imposition of a period of postrelease supervision (PRS) in connection with a 2000 conviction precluded using that conviction as a predicate felony for sentencing purposes. The court noted that the 2005 Catu decision, which held defendants must be informed of PRS, applied retroactively:

CPL 400.15(7)(b) provides: “A previous conviction . . . which was obtained in violation of the rights of the defendant under the applicable provisions of the constitution of the United States must not be counted in determining whether the defendant has been subjected to a predicate violent felony conviction.” The People’s argument that a Catu error does not violate the United States Constitution is improperly raised for the first time in their reply brief, and is without merit in any event.

“[A] conviction obtained in violation of Catu implicates rights under the federal Constitution as well as the state constitution” … . Furthermore, although the Catu error in this case occurred in 2000, prior to the 2005 Catu decision, Catu applies retroactively … . People v Fagan, 2015 NY Slip Op 08782, 1st Dept 12-1-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, CATU ERROR PRECLUDES USE OF CONVICTION AS PREDICATE)/SENTENCING (CATU ERROR PRECLUDES USE OF CONVICTION AS PREDICATE)

,

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

 

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