You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Jury Should Have Been Instructed on Intoxication Where an Element of Some of the Charged Offenses Could Have Been Negated by Defendant’s Intoxication

The Second Department determined defendant’s conviction on some of charged offenses must be reversed because the trial judge erroneously refused defendant’s request for a charge on intoxication. There was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion defendant was highly intoxicated when he broke into two apartments from which nothing was stolen, which may have negated the intent element of some of the charges:

Although intoxication is not a defense to a criminal offense, evidence of intoxication “may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negative an element of the crime charged” (Penal Law § 15.25). An intoxication charge should be issued when, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the defendant, there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to an element on that basis … . The evidence of intoxication in this case met this ” relatively low threshold'” … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the error was not harmless with respect to the defendant’s convictions of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. In order for an error to be harmless, among other things, the proof of the defendant’s guilt must be overwhelming … . Here, the proof of the defendant’s intent as to the crimes of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree was not overwhelming … . People v Velez, 2015 NY Slip Op 07691, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

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

 

,

Judicial Notice and Collateral Estoppel Re: Philippine Law and a Philippine Court Order Improperly Applied—Related Conspiracy Conviction Vacated/Emails and Newspaper Articles, Although Hearsay, Properly Admitted

The First Department, in a prosecution stemming from the failure to pay tax on the sale of a painting, determined Supreme Court improperly took judicial notice of the law of the Philippines and improperly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel (based upon a Philippine court order). The painting once belonged to Imelda Marcos when she was the First Lady of the Philippines. Under Philippine law, the painting allegedly should have been forfeited to the people of the Philippines. Defendant (with others) completed the sale of the painting for $32 million. The First Department vacated the conspiracy conviction because of the misapplication of Philippine law, but affirmed the crIminal tax fraud and “filing a false instrument” convictions. In addition to discussing the misapplication of Philippine law and the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the First Department held that emails, although hearsay, were properly admitted to show conduct (not for the truth of the content) and newspaper articles, although hearsay, were properly admitted to show defendant knew the Philippine government was trying to recover the painting (state-of-mind exception):

The trial court erred in reading or paraphrasing approximately eight sentences from an order of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines in a proceeding commenced by the Republic against Imelda Marcos and others, where the Philippine court granted summary judgment in favor of the petition, and ordered that more than $658 million held mostly in Swiss bank accounts be forfeited to the Republic. Only one sentence read by the court to the jury purported to state the law of the Philippines, namely Philippine Republic Act No. 1379, which provides that any property acquired by a public official during his or her term of public service that is “manifestly out of proportion” to the official’s public salary and any other lawful income “shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.” The remaining portions of the opinion read to the jury consisted of fact findings, and thus were not proper subjects of judicial notice pursuant to CPLR 4511(b) … .

The court implicitly applied collateral estoppel, which was inapplicable even under the standards governing civil cases, since defendant was not a party to the Philippine case and had no opportunity to litigate the issues therein; moreover, collateral estoppel should be applied with more caution in criminal cases than in civil … . The court further erred in paraphrasing the opinion without clarifying the rebuttable nature of the presumption under the Philippines law, and that error was compounded by the court’s ruling precluding defense counsel from addressing that point in summation. …

The court properly admitted emails exchanged between two of defendant’s alleged coconspirators, her nephews, under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the People made a prima facie showing of conspiracy “without recourse to the declarations sought to be introduced” … . There was testimony indicating that one of defendant’s nephews extensively participated in the painting sale at issue, and defendant sent $100,000 of the proceeds to him. Defendant also sent $5 million of the proceeds to the other nephew. Although defendant notes that the court relied in part on the emails at issue, the messages were properly considered to demonstrate the nephews’ conduct, such as offering or arranging to offer certain prices and forwarding photographs of paintings to potential buyers, rather than for the truth of the messages … .

Under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule …, the court properly admitted news articles and other documents, recovered in a search of defendant’s home, concerning the Philippine government’s efforts to recover artworks allegedly misappropriated by the Marcos administration. The circumstances warranted a reasonable inference that defendant was aware of these documents and their contents … , establishing her motive to conceal the sale of a painting allegedly given to her by the former First Lady. Thus, the evidence tended to rebut the defense argument that defendant’s failure to report her income from the sale on her tax returns was not necessarily intentional. People v Bautista, 2015 NY Slip Op 07589, 1st Dept 10-20-15

 

,

Sexual Conduct That Does Not Rise to the Level of a SORA Sex Offense May Be Considered Under the “Number of Victims” Risk Factor

The Court of Appeals determined that the “number of victims” risk factor (risk factor 3) under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) properly included “sexual conduct” that did not amount to SORA level sex offenses and which involved “webcam chats:”

Given that the Guidelines do not mention a SORA level offense in risk factor 3, but instead address the more general term, “sexual conduct,” we agree with the People that the conduct does not have to amount to a SORA level offense in order to be considered. Furthermore, the child can still be a victim under risk factor 3 even though the defendant and the child were not in the same room, but were communicating through a webcam … . People v Izzo, 2015 NY Slip Op 07576, CtApp 10-20-15

 

,

Lobby of Public Housing Unit Is Not “Open to the Public” Within the Meaning of the Law of Trespass

The Court of Appeals determined the misdemeanor information charging defendant with criminal trespass second degree was sufficient. The defendant was in the lobby of a public housing unit where a “no trespassing” sign was posted. When asked, the defendant said he did not reside in the building and could not identify any resident who had invited him. The court explained the elements of all three degrees of trespass and found that the lobby of a public housing unit is not “open to the public” within the meaning of the law of trespass:

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the word “public” in the phrase “public housing” refers to ownership, not access. It is not the case that all property owned by the government is “open to the public.” Certain areas of publicly-owned buildings may be restricted from public use by a locked door or a front desk, much like the common areas of privately-owned buildings … . The presence of a “No Trespassing” sign may also indicate that the common area of a publicly-owned building is not open to the public. Accordingly, we agree with the Appellate Term that it is possible for a person to enter or remain in a publicly-owned dwelling without license or privilege to do so. People v Barnes, 2015 NY Slip Op 07577, CtApp 10-20-15

 

Allegations Describing a “Gravity Knife” in Misdemeanor Complaint Were Sufficient

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined the misdemeanor complaint sufficiently alleged the defendant possessed a “gravity knife:”

Defendant argues that an accusatory instrument alleging possession of a gravity knife must expressly state that the knife locks by means of a device. We disagree. By stating that a knife, once opened, “locks automatically in place,” an accusatory instrument conveys to a defendant that his knife was observed (1) to lock in an open position, rather than merely having a bias towards remaining open, and (2) to lock by means of a built-in device, rather than manually. A mechanism that locks itself by means of such a device is naturally described as locking “automatically.” Indeed, many New York cases have treated locking “by means of a . . . device” (Penal Law § 265.00 as synonymous with “automatically” locking for these purposes … . Moreover, because of the use of the generic term “device” in the statute, there can be no requirement that an arresting officer specify any particular kind of mechanism on the knife that causes it to lock in place. People v Sans, 2015 NY Slip Op 07529, CtApp 10-15-15

 

,

Failure to Turn Over to the Defendant Grand Jury Minutes Use by the Judge in SORA Risk Calculation Violated Due Process

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined the failure to turn over to the defendant grand jury minutes used by judge in the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) proceedings was a violation of due process. However, in light of the other evidence, the error was harmless. The Court of Appeals explained the application of due process protections to SORA proceedings:

It is well established that sex offenders are entitled to certain due process protections at their risk level classification proceedings (see … Doe v Pataki, 3 F Supp 2d 456 [SD NY 1998]). Doe, for example, recognized that, although “the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding are not as extensive as those required in a plenary criminal or civil trial . . . the consequences of registration and notification under the Act are sufficiently serious to warrant more than mere summary process” (Doe, 3 F Supp 2d at 470 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Accordingly, that court held that in order to satisfy due process concerns, the offender must be afforded prehearing discovery of the documentary evidence relating to his or her proposed risk level adjudication (see Doe, 3 F Supp 2d at 472).

Likewise, we have observed that “[t]he bedrock of due process is notice and opportunity to be heard” … . * * *

In keeping with our precedent, the Correction Law requires that defendant is entitled to prehearing access to the documents relied upon by the Board in reaching a risk level recommendation (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]…). Although the statute may not expressly state that defendant is likewise entitled to any materials submitted by the District Attorney in meeting its burden of establishing the facts supporting a risk level determination by clear and convincing evidence, the same due process concerns are presented in that context. Moreover, broad disclosure is consistent with Doe’s recognition that an offender should be accorded discovery “of all papers, documents and other material relating to his proposed level and manner of notification” (3 F Supp 2d at 472). People v Baxin, 2015 NY Slip Op 07530, CtApp 10-15-14

 

,

Evidence of a Murder Which Was Not Connected to the Defendant Properly Admitted to Explain Relevant Events—Probative Value Outweighed Prejudicial Effect

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that evidence of a murder which was not connected to the defendant was properly admitted in defendant’s witness-tampering prosecution. Defendant was awaiting trial on a murder charge. Three teenaged girls and a man named Bobby Gibson were eyewitnesses. Defendant allegedly developed relationships with the three girls and paid them money. The girls recanted their identifications of the defendant. Then, on the day before the trial, Bobby Gibson was shot and killed outside the apartment of one of the girls. The girls then went to the police and told the police why they had recanted. The girls were placed in protective custody.  A man who was apparently not connected with the defendant, confessed to killing Bobby Gibson. The Court of Appeals determined evidence of Bobby Gibson’s death was properly admitted in the witness-tampering trial to explain the girls’ actions. The trial judge gave the jury a limiting instruction emphasizing that there was no evidence connecting the defendant to the Gibson murder:

Generally, “all relevant evidence is admissible unless its admission violates some exclusionary rule” … . “Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency in reason to prove the existence of any material fact” … . However, “[e]ven where relevant evidence is admissible, it may still be excluded in the exercise of the trial court’s discretion if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the potential for prejudice” … .

Here, the evidence of Gibson’s murder was relevant for several reasons. It showed the state of mind of the three girls and provided an explanation as to why they abandoned their recantations and told police about their deal with defendant. It also explained why the girls were placed in protective custody prior to the trial. Additionally, it allowed the jury to have all of the relevant facts before it to decide whether to credit defense counsel’s arguments or the three girls’ testimony concerning the charges against defendant.

While possible prejudice could arise from the testimony in that the jury might link defendant to the Gibson murder, that prejudice was minimized by the court’s limiting instruction. The court, in its final charge, made clear that defendant had not been charged with causing the death of Gibson. In addition, the prosecutor had stated plainly in his opening statement and [*2]summation that there was no evidence that defendant was involved. Thus, we conclude that the court’s decision to admit the evidence of Gibson’s murder was not an abuse of discretion. People v Harris, 2015 NY Slip Op 07528, CtApp 10-15-15

 

Conviction Based Upon Plea Where Defendant Was Not Advised of the Period of Postrelease Supervision Is Unconstitutional for Predicate Felony Purposes—Catu Applied Retroactively

The First Department determined a 2002 conviction based upon a (pre-Catu) plea during which defendant was not advised of the period of postrelease supervision is unconstitutional for predicate felony purposes:

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 felony conviction” … . Because a conviction obtained in violation of Catu implicates rights under the federal Constitution as well as the state constitution (see Catu, 4 NY3d at 245 …), the court properly granted defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion and vacated his sentence as a second violent felony offender on the ground that his 2002 conviction could not be counted as a predicate felony under CPL 400.15(7)(b).

The underlying conviction preceded the Catu decision. However, contrary to the People’s contention, we find that the rule of law announced in Catu applies retroactively to pre-Catu convictions … . People v Smith, 2015 NY Slip Op 07565, 1st Dept 10-15-15

 

, ,

Failure to Advise Appellant of Right to Counsel In Contempt Proceedings Required Reversal

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, which found appellant, Patricia Howlett, to be in civil and criminal contempt for the alleged failure to comply with a court order, because appellant was not informed of her right to counsel in the contempt proceedings:

The Supreme Court erred in holding Patricia Howlett in criminal and civil contempt. There is no evidence in the record which would establish that the court informed Howlett of her right to the assistance of counsel in connection with the contempt proceedings (see Judiciary Law § 770…). Howlett must be fully advised of her right to counsel, and her right to appointed counsel must be adequately explored, with counsel to be provided if appropriate … . Accordingly, we must reverse the order dated January 7, 2015, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and a new determination of the motion to hold Howlett in contempt. Matter of Anthie B. (Howlett), 2015 NY Slip Op 07496, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

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