You are here: / Criminal Law

Court’s Unjustifiably Narrow Interpretation of Jury’s Request for Evidence Required Reversal

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, with a concurring memorandum by Judge Rivera, determined the trial judge’s narrow reading of a request for evidence of the benefits two prosecution witnesses received in return for their testimony required reversal. There was essentially no evidence other than the testimony of the two witnesses pointing to defendant as the shooter. A written cooperation agreement with one of the two witnesses outlined some of the benefits accorded him. However, there was also trial testimony in which both witnesses testified about other benefits received in exchange for testimony. The jury requested to “see” the evidence of the benefits. The court read the request narrowly to refer only to the written cooperation agreement and gave the jury the impression only the cooperation agreement was in evidence. The Court of Appeals held that the jury note should have been read as a request for all the evidence of benefits accorded the witnesses and the failure to provide all the requested evidence was reversible error:

CPL 310.30 provides that, “[u]pon such request” for evidence or legal instruction from a deliberating jury, “the court must direct that the jury be returned to the courtroom and, after notice to both the people and counsel for the defendant, and in the presence of the defendant, must give such requested information or instruction as the court deems proper” (CPL 310.30). Similarly, absent a withdrawal of the jury’s inquiry or similar circumstances, common-law principles of procedural fairness generally require the court to furnish the jury with information requested during its deliberations, and the court has significant discretion in determining the proper scope and nature of the response … . Thus, regardless of whether the issue is framed under CPL 310.30 or common-law rules governing jury deliberations, where, as here, the defendant has preserved for our review a specific objection to the contents of the trial court’s response to a jury note, we must determine whether the trial court acted within the bounds of its discretion in fashioning an answer to the jury’s inquiry … . In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error, “[t]he factors to be evaluated are the form of the jury’s question, which may have to be clarified before it can be answered, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the [information] actually given and the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant” … .

In this case, an evaluation of those factors demonstrates that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to provide the jurors with information that they plainly wanted and incorrectly characterizing the state of the evidence on the subject of their inquiry.  People v Taylor, 2015 NY Slip Op 07782, CtApp 10-27-15

 

, ,

Dismissal of Criminal Case Did Not Collaterally Estop Civil Case Based Upon the Same Forged-Deed Allegation/No Statute of Limitations Applies to Case Based Upon Forged-Deed Allegation

In an action based upon the allegation the signature on a deed was forged, the Third Department determined no statute of limitations applies to forged deeds which are void ab initio and the dismissal of a Spanish criminal case based upon the forged-deed allegation did not collaterally estop the New York civil action:

We agree with plaintiffs that they are not collaterally estopped from maintaining this action. It is well established that “dismissal of a criminal charge . . . does not generally constitute collateral estoppel in relation to a civil action because of the difference in the burden of proof to establish the factual issues” … . Indeed, the Spanish court dismissed the Spanish criminal action “without prejudice,” expressly permitting the matter to “be referred to civil jurisdiction.” Inasmuch as this dismissal of the Spanish criminal action did not conclusively establish whether the signature was forged, and did not preclude plaintiffs from commencing a similar civil action, defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of proving “that this identical issue was necessarily decided in the [prior action] and is conclusive in the [present] action” … .

Nor should plaintiffs’ action have been deemed time-barred by the statute of limitations. While the limitations period for a cause of action sounding in fraud is the greater of six years after the cause of action accrued or two years after it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence (see CPLR 213 [8]), the Court of Appeals has recently held that this period does not apply when the particular species of fraud alleged is the forgery of a deed. The Court found that, unlike other fraud-based causes of action, “a claim against a forged deed is not subject to a statute of limitations defense” because of “the clarity of our law that a forged deed is void ab initio, and that it is a document without legal capacity to have any effect on ownership rights” … . Mazo v Mazo, 2015 NY Slip Op 07721, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

Pregnant Woman Not Liable Under the Reckless Manslaughter Statute for Death of Baby Injured in Utero But Subsequently Delivered Alive by Cesarean Section

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over an extensive dissent, determined a pregnant women could not be convicted of reckless manslaughter for the death of her baby following a head-on collision. Defendant was in the wrong lane and struck an on-coming car, killing the two occupants. Defendant consented to a cesarean section because the baby was in distress (due to the accident). The baby was born alive but subsequently died. Defendant was convicted of manslaughter for recklessly causing the baby’s death. The Court of Appeals reversed noting that, had the baby died in utero, the baby would not have met the definition of “person” in the manslaughter statute:

Had the legislature intended to include pregnant women in the class of individuals who may be guilty of manslaughter in the second degree for reckless acts committed while pregnant, resulting in the eventual death of their child, it could clearly have done so. Moreover, had defendant’s fetus died in utero, then, plainly, defendant could not have been prosecuted under the manslaughter statute because the fetus would not have fallen under the definition of a “person” (Penal Law § 125.05 [1]; …). * * *

The imposition of criminal liability upon pregnant women for acts committed against a fetus that is later born and subsequently dies as a result of injuries sustained while in utero should be clearly defined by the legislature, not the courts. It should also not be left to the whim of the prosecutor. Conceivably, one could find it “reckless” for a pregnant woman to disregard her obstetrician’s specific orders concerning bed rest; take prescription and/or illicit drugs; shovel a walkway; engage in a contact sport; carry groceries; or disregard dietary restrictions. Such conduct, if it resulted in premature birth and subsequent death of the child, could result in criminal liability for the mother. At present, such conduct, if it caused a stillbirth, would not result in criminal prosecution of the mother if the fetus died in utero. Any change in the law with regard to such matters would be within the province of the legislature. People v Jorgensen, 2015 NY Slip Op 07699, CtApp 10-22-15

 

,

Police Were Justified In Questioning Defendant’s Presence In Lobby of an Apartment Building Enrolled in the “Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP)”

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera (in which Judge Lippman concurred), determined a police officer had the right to question defendant about his presence in the lobby of an apartment building. After defendant stated he did not live in the building and could not identify a resident who invited him there, he was arrested for trespass and a razor blade was seized from his pocket, The building was enrolled in the “trespass affidavit program (TAP)” which was described as a solicitation of police assistance for dealing with trespassers. The police officers entered the building to conduct a floor by floor search for trespassers:

Our analysis begins with the points “that whether police conduct in any particular case conforms to De Bour is a mixed question of law and fact,” and that, in such circumstances, “our review is limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts’ determinations” … . On the merits, our analysis proceeds under the first of the four levels of De Bour, which sets a low bar for an initial encounter: it “permits a police officer to request information from an individual and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality” … .

Here the record reflects that the encounter occurred in a private space restricted by signage and a lock, and that police assistance in combating trespassing had been sought through enrollment in the TAP. Put simply, the coupling of defendant’s presence in the subject building with the private and protected nature of that location supports the intrusion giving rise to what became the seizure in question. We conclude that there is record support for the determination that the police had an objective credible reason to request information from defendant … .

In so concluding we note that the police patrol at issue here was intended in part to combat trespassing, that is, “knowingly enter[ing] or remain[ing] unlawfully in or upon a premises” (Penal Law § 140.05), that the building at issue was enrolled in the TAP for the purpose of addressing that problem, and that this branch of the TAP is rooted in tenant protection throughout Manhattan. Under these circumstances a police officer could have identified a trespasser only by requesting information. People v Barksdale, 2015 NY Slip Op 07694, CtApp 10-22-15

 

Flawed Procedure Following “Batson” Challenges to the Prosecution’s Exclusion of Two Nonwhite Jurors Required Reversal

The Third Department determined reversal and a new trial were necessary because of flaws in the procedure used following the “Batson” challenge of the prosecution’s peremptory challenges to two nonwhite members of the jury panel.  The judge denied the Batson challenges. The Third Department explained the correct procedure and the flawed procedure actually used:

A Batson challenge implicates a three-step process in which, “[a]t step one, ‘the moving party bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges'” … . “Once a prima facie showing of discrimination is made, the nonmovant must come forward with a race-neutral explanation for each challenged peremptory — step two” … . The explanation at step two is “not required to be ‘persuasive, or even plausible’; as long as the reasons for the challenges are ‘facially neutral,’ even ‘ill-founded’ reasons will suffice” … , and determining whether the step two explanation is adequate is “a question of law” … . If the nonmoving party provides an adequate explanation, “the burden then shifts back, at step three, to the moving party to persuade the court that reasons are merely a pretext for intentional discrimination” … . This step is a factual issue in which the trial court has broad discretion in determining credibility … .

Initially, we note that the Batson application, made before the end of jury selection, was timely … and any issue regarding the sufficiency of defendant’s step one showing is now moot since the People offered step two race neutral reasons for the challenged peremptory challenges … . The reasons offered by the People included, as to juror No. 19, that the father of her children had been prosecuted by the Schenectady County District Attorney’s office for robbery and “presumably” was in prison. Regarding juror No. 127, the People explained in some detail that there were jurors after her that they preferred to use to fill the twelfth and final seat. Although these reasons were facially race-neutral satisfying the People’s step two burden, defendant points out that the People’s statement regarding juror No. 19 had significant factual errors embellishing on her actual comment, and also that the People did not challenge a white juror whose sister had “been in and out of trouble for years, felonies, in trouble with the law.” As such, there were important factual issues implicating credibility that needed to be resolved at step three. However, as conceded by the People in their brief on appeal, County Court ruled on the Batson application at the conclusion of step two.

The improper compressing of a Batson inquiry does not necessarily mandate reversal, as the movant must preserve the issue as to whether a meaningful step three inquiry occurred … . Indeed, whatever procedural problems may exist in a Batson inquiry, the overriding concern is that a properly preserved question regarding the ultimate issue of discrimination is meaningfully addressed … . Here, defendant sufficiently preserved the issue and the ultimate issue was not adequately addressed. After the People offered their race neutral reasons as to the second relevant juror, defendant began to respond and urged that the record was not complete. County Court stated that the record was complete and summarily denied defendant’s Batson challenge. “[T]he court did not appear to give any consideration to pretext, nor was the basis of its ruling reflected in the record”… . People v Grafton, 2015 NY Slip Op 07701, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

,

Police Did Have Sufficient Suspicion to Justify Telling Defendant to Drop a Bag He Was Holding—Suppression Should Have Been Granted

The First Department determined the police did not have a founded suspicion criminal activity was afoot when they directed defendant to drop a bag he was holding. Therefore defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted:

The police officers’ initial approach and their intrusion upon defendant’s freedom by directing that he drop the bag were unsupported by a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot necessary to the exercise of the common-law right to inquire … . The officers approached defendant based solely on their observation of him carrying a shopping bag or gift bag that seemed rigid. While one officer testified that, based on his experience, he thought it might be a “booster bag” used for shoplifting, he essentially described an ordinary shopping bag. Further, it was conceded that defendant was not free to leave at the time he was ordered to drop the bag and its use as a booster bag became apparent. Defendant’s innocuous behavior in walking in and out of a store with the bag and his ensuing behavior did not justify further interference to obtain explanatory information … . People v Ties, 2015 NY Slip Op 07753, 1st Dept 10-22-15

 

,

Hearsay Alone Will Not Support Revocation of Probation/Failure to Pay Restitution Will Not Support Revocation of Probation If Due to an Inability to Pay

In reversing the judgment revoking defendant’s probation, the Third Department noted that hearsay alone cannot be the basis for revocation and failure to pay restitution will only support revocation if defendant has the ability to pay:

It is settled that, “in revocation proceedings for failure to pay a fine or restitution, a sentencing court must inquire into the reasons for the failure to pay” … . “If the probationer willfully refused to pay or failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay, the court may revoke probation and sentence the defendant to imprisonment within the authorized range of its sentencing authority” … . If, on the other hand, “the probationer could not pay despite sufficient bona fide efforts to acquire the resources to do so, the court must consider alternate measures of punishment other than imprisonment” … .

Here, there was neither an adequate inquiry into defendant’s ability to pay nor a determination that his failure to pay was willful … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for further proceedings to determine whether defendant’s failure to make the required monthly restitution payments was willful and, if so, whether such failure, standing alone, serves as a valid basis for revocation of his probation and the imposition of a sentence of incarceration … . People v Songa, 2015 NY Slip Op 07704, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

Broken Sentence Promise Required Vacatur of the Guilty Plea

The Third Department determined defendant’s guilty plea was induced by County Court’s promise to impose a sentence of shock incarceration. At sentencing, County Court refused to order shock incarceration. Because the plea was induced by the broken promise, the plea was not knowing and voluntary. The fact that neither the People nor County Court could guarantee defendant’s participation in the shock incarceration program was deemed irrelevant:

We start with the principle that a trial court always “retains discretion in fixing an appropriate sentence up until the time of sentencing” … . However, when the court wishes to depart from a promised sentence, it must either honor the promise or give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea … . Accordingly, “[a] guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored” … .

Here, prior to defendant’s guilty plea, County Court indicated its belief that defendant was eligible for shock incarceration and then unequivocally promised that it “would order him into it.” When defendant specifically asked if shock incarceration was guaranteed, the court stated that it “would order it absolutely” and that a failure on the part of prison authorities to admit him would “defy an order of the [c]ourt.” Furthermore, defense counsel stated that he was recommending that defendant accept the plea agreement “especially with a shock commitment.” Thus, regardless of the fact that “neither County Court nor the People possessed the authority to guarantee [defendant’s] participation” in the shock incarceration program … , the record reflects that defendant, in accepting the plea, relied upon County Court’s promise to do exactly that. Consequently, we find that defendant’s plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and that, because County Court’s promise to defendant cannot be honored as a matter of law, he is entitled to vacatur of his guilty plea … . People v Muhammad, 2015 NY Slip Op 07702, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

,

“For Cause” Challenge to Juror Who Socialized with District Attorney Should Have Been Granted—Concept of “Implied Bias” Explained

The Third Department determined a new trial was necessary because of the denial of a “for cause” challenge to a juror who socialized with the district attorney (the case was tried by an assistant district attorney). The court explained the concept of “implied bias” which is not easily “cured:”

A statement by a potential juror suggesting a possible bias can be cured, and the juror not excused, if the juror “provide[s] ‘unequivocal assurance that [he or she] can set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence'” … . However, where, as here, the challenge for cause involves a juror’s relationship with a trial participant, a so-called “implied bias” may be implicated which “requires automatic exclusion from jury service regardless of whether the prospective juror declares that the relationship will not affect [his or] her ability to be fair and impartial” … . Of course, “[n]ot all relationships . . . require disqualification . . . [and] [t]he frequency of contact and nature of the parties’ relationship are to be considered in determining whether disqualification is necessary” … . As a practical matter, “the trial court should lean toward disqualifying a prospective juror of dubious impartiality” … .

Here, during voir dire, juror no. 3372 stated that her family was “good friends” with the family of the District Attorney. She added that she socialized with the District Attorney, including having him and his wife as dinner guests at her home, and she and her husband had dined as guests at the District Attorney’s home. County Court nonetheless denied defendant’s challenge for cause as to such juror. People v Bedard, 2015 NY Slip Op 07703, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

Amendment of Decision and Order Dismissing Indictment Was Proper

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly amended a decision and order which initially granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on “speedy trial” grounds. The amended decision and order, which was issued a day after the initial decision and order, denied the motion with respect to three counts:

A court possesses “inherent authority to rectify a prior error in dismissing an indictment” … , and “where there is a clearly erroneous dismissal of an indictment or count thereof, it is unreasonable to foreclose a court from reconsidering its previous determination” …, even in the absence of a formal motion for leave to reargue by the People … . Furthermore, under the facts of this case, there was no constitutional or statutory impediment to the court’s power to promptly modify its prior determination to dismiss the indictment and to thereby correct the previous error … .

Here, the Supreme Court recognized the error only one day after issuing the initial decision and order, well within the time period during which, for example, a motion for leave to reargue could have been made and before the People even had a reasonable opportunity to make such a motion. Moreover, while any present challenge to the court’s determination of the statutory speedy trial issue in the amended decision and order was forfeited by the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea of guilty …, we note, in any event, that the error in initially dismissing counts seven, eight, and nine based on an alleged statutory speedy trial violation was clearly apparent from the documents in the court file. Accordingly, the prompt issuance of the amended decision and order correcting the prior mistake in this case was not improper or jurisdictionally defective. People v Francis, 2015 NY Slip Op 07679, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

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