You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT ON THE GROUND THE POLICE VIOLATED THE “KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE” RULE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS “NOVEL” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, affirming the Appellate Division, over a three-judge concurrence which argued the case should have been disposed of based on the inadequacy of the record and not on the merits, determined the “single error” attributed to defense counsel did not amount to ineffective assistance. Defendant argued a motion to suppress should have been made on the ground the police violated the knock-and-announce rule when executing the warrant:

We have recognized that a single error in an otherwise competent performance may be sufficiently “egregious and prejudicial as to deprive a defendant of [the] constitutional right to effective legal representation” … . To “rise to that level,” however, defense counsel’s omission “must typically involve an issue that is so clear-cut and dispositive that no reasonable defense counsel would have failed to assert it, and it must be evident that the decision to forgo the contention could not have been grounded in a legitimate trial strategy” … .

That standard is not satisfied if the “omitted argument was not so compelling that a failure to make it amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel” … . We have stated that counsel is not ineffective when the success of the argument the defendant claims should have been made by counsel “depended on the resolution of novel questions” … , or when, at the time of the defendant’s trial, “there was no clear appellate authority” supporting the argument the defendant claims that counsel should have made … .

The United States Supreme Court has held that a violation of the knock-and-announce rule by police when executing a search warrant does not require the application of the exclusionary rule under the Federal Constitution (see generally Hudson v Michigan, 547 US 586 [2006]). Defendant acknowledges that no New York appellate decision has decided to the contrary, either by distinguishing Hudson, on the basis of the New York Constitution, or otherwise. Indeed, defendant concedes that the issue is novel. We need not and do not resolve the merits of that question on this appeal. We merely hold that the issue was not so clear-cut and dispositive that no reasonable defense attorney would have failed to assert it, and therefore “defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance must fail” … . People v Hayward, 2024 NY Slip Op 05243, CtApp 10-22-24

Practice Point: A single error by defense counsel may rise to the level of ineffective assistance, but not, as here, where the issue defense counsel failed to raise is deemed “novel.”

 

,

THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN AT LIBERTY FOR 11 YEARS WITHOUT COMMITTING A SEX OFFENSE AND THE FOUR-YEAR DIFFERENCE IN AGE BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM WARRANTED A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, granting defendant a downward departure to level one in this SORA risk-assessment proceeding, determined the fact that during 11 years of liberty defendant has not committed a sex offense, and the four-year age-difference between defendant and the victim, should have been considered by the SORA court:

… [T]he defendant has been at liberty for more than 11 years without committing an additional sex offense or violent felony. Additionally, although the Supreme Court properly assessed the defendant points on the risk assessment instrument based on both the victim’s age (risk factor 5) and the defendant’s age at the time of his first offense (risk factor 8), the court did not adequately account for the age difference between the victim and the defendant, which was approximately four years and two months, as an appropriate mitigating factor … .

Under the totality of the circumstances, including that the defendant was already on the cusp of the range applicable to a presumptive risk level two designation … , we designate the defendant a level one sex offender … . People v Wildman, 2024 NY Slip Op 05229, Second Dept 10-23-24

Practice Point: 11 years of liberty without committing a sex offense and the four-year age gap between defendant and the victim warranted a downward departure to level one in this SORA risk-level proceeding.​

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF GUILT MADE WHEN HIS APPEAL WAS PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF POINTS IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING FOR “FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY” (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this SORA risk-assessment proceeding, determined defendant should not have been assessed 10 points for failure to accept responsibility because his denial of guilt was made when his appeal was pending:

… [T]he court should not have assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 for failure to accept responsibility. Defendant’s denials of guilt were made at the time his appeal from his underlying conviction was pending. “Requiring defendant to accept responsibility could potentially result in his admissions being used against him in any retrial, violating his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination” … . People v Wallace, 2024 NY Slip Op 05189, First Dept 10-22-24

Practice Point: A denial of guilt made when defendant’s appeal was pending and there was a chance for a retrial cannot be used against him in a SORA risk-level assessment.

 

, ,

THE PROVISION OF THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW WHICH ALLOWS TEMPORARY CONFINEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHOUT THE OFFENDER’S PARTICIPATION AT THE PROBABLE CAUSE STAGE IS CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, affirming the Appellate Division, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined the procedure under the Mental Hygiene Law which allows the temporary confinement of sex offenders without the offender’s participation at the probable cause stage is constitutional:

This appeal requires us to examine whether certain provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11 (d) (4) satisfy procedural due process. Those provisions govern the procedure for the temporary confinement of sex offenders adjudicated to have “mental abnormalities”—but released from confinement to strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST)—pending a final SIST revocation hearing. * * *

This appeal concerns the initial step in the process for revoking SIST. “If a parole officer has reasonable cause to believe that” a respondent has violated a SIST condition, or if an “evaluation or report by a treating professional indicat[es] that the person may be a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement,” a parole officer may take the violator into custody and transport them to a facility for a psychiatric evaluation, which must take place within five days … . Once the violator is taken into custody, DOCCS must “promptly” notify the Attorney General and the Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS), which provides legal representation to article 10 respondents … . The Attorney General may then petition for confinement or a petition to modify the conditions within five days …  The petition must “be served promptly on the respondent and [MHLS],” and the court must appoint legal counsel to represent the respondent and provide counsel with a copy of the psychiatric evaluation … . If the Attorney General files a petition seeking confinement,

“then the court shall promptly review the petition and, based on the allegations in the petition and any accompanying papers, determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement. Upon the finding of probable cause, the respondent may be retained in a local correctional facility or a secure treatment facility pending the conclusion of the proceeding” … .

* * * “The respondent shall not be released pending the completion of the hearing” … . People ex rel. Neville v Toulon, 2024 NY Slip Op 05178, CtApp 10-22-24

Practice Point: The provision of the Mental Hygiene Law which allows temporary confinement of sex offenders without the offender’s participation at the probable cause stage is constitutional.

 

, , ,

UNDER THE FACTS, THE PRO SE DEFENDANT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE BY THE PEOPLE’S ACCESS TO HIS RECORDED JAIL PHONE CALLS; DEFENDANT EFFECTIVELY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, affirming the Appellate Division, determined (1) the fact that the People had access to defendant’s recorded jail phone calls did not, under the facts, deprive the pro se defendant of his right to present a defense, and (2) the defendant effectively waived his right to counsel:

Under the particular facts of this case, however, we conclude that defendant’s right to present a defense was not impaired by the monitoring of his jail phone calls. Defendant was out on bail for nearly the entire two years between indictment and his mid-trial remand, including more than six months while representing himself, giving him ample time to prepare his witnesses. Even after remand, there is no dispute that defendant had means other than the recorded phone lines to prepare his witnesses. Indeed, the record establishes that defendant’s daughter visited him in jail at his request before he called her to testify so that they could continue their trial preparations in person. The court was proactive in protecting defendant’s rights, permitting him time in the courtroom to speak to each of his witnesses in private before their testimony. In addition, when defendant asked to adjourn for the weekend to prepare his witnesses, the court stated that it would take the matter up in the morning, at which time it was agreed that defendant would testify for most of the remainder of the week. The court also noted that defendant had been assigned a legal advisor and an investigator, both of whom had the expertise and wherewithal to assist in the preparation of the defense.

Although the People’s monitoring of an incarcerated pro se defendant’s jail phone calls may have a chilling effect on the defendant’s trial preparation that threatens the right to present a defense—particularly if the People are able to make use of the information in the calls in the pending trial—the facts here are otherwise. Defendant became aware that the People were listening to his phone conversations only after he had presented the direct testimony of his daughter and an expert. Aside from himself, the only remaining defense witnesses provided character testimony and little else that could be considered relevant to the case. Thus, any chilling effect here was negligible. People v Dixon, 2024 NY Slip Op 05176, CtApp 10-22-24

Practice Point: Under the facts of this case, the pro se defendant was not deprived of his right to present a defense by the People’s access to his recorded jail phone calls.

Practice Point: Here the defendant effectively waived his right to counsel.

 

, ,

IN ORDER TO KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE INFORMED OF HIS MAXIMUM SENTENCING EXPOSURE IN YEARS; THE “SPEEDY TRIAL” TIME ASSOCIATED WITH THE JOINDER OF A CO-DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL IS CHARGED TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT YET BEEN ARRAIGNED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, affirming the Appellate Division, determined (1) in order to effectively waive the right to counsel, a defendant need not be informed of his maximum sentencing exposure in years, and (2) the pre-arraignment delay associated with the joinder for trial with a co-defendant is not chargeable to the People:

Defendant Anthony Blue challenges his criminal conviction for five counts of second-degree burglary. Blue argues that a criminal defendant cannot make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel unless the trial judge specifically apprises the defendant of his maximum sentencing exposure in years. Rather than imposing a bright-line rule such as this, we have said that a court must ensure a defendant is adequately warned of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation before allowing him to proceed pro se. A review of the record here confirms that Blue had such an understanding at the time he waived his right to counsel.

Blue also argues that his indictment should have been dismissed on statutory speedy-trial grounds. CPL 30.30 (4) (d), broadly speaking, excludes from the time chargeable to the People a reasonable period of delay when a defendant is joined for trial with a co-defendant. Blue contends this provision does not apply to pre-arraignment time, but the Appellate Division correctly concluded that it does. Thus the 57 days between indictment and arraignment chargeable to Blue’s co-defendant were also chargeable to Blue, even though he had not yet been arraigned. People v Blue, 2024 NY Slip Op 05175, CtApp 10-22-24

Practice Point: A defendant can effectively waive the right to counsel without being informed of his maximum sentencing exposure in years.

Practice Point: Even though defendant had not yet been arraigned, the time associated with joining a co-defendant for trial was chargeable to the defendant.

 

, ,

AFTER TWO MENTIONS OF THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR AN ATTORNEY WHICH DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST, THE DEFENDANT STATED “THAT’S WHAT I WANT A LAWYER FOR,” HE WAS “SCARED TO TALK,” AND HE “COULD STILL COOPERATE LATER;” THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE POLICE AS A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined statements made by defendant after he invoked his right to counsel should have been suppressed:

In the course of the investigators’ questioning of defendant, they transitioned away from asking defendant about his flight from the police and turned to the underlying domestic violence incident. When they began focusing on how he had first encountered the victim earlier that morning, defendant expressed that he did not wish to discuss that subject. After the investigators continued with a couple of follow-up questions on this topic, defendant stated, “that’s what I want a lawyer for.” He then went on to say that he was scared to talk and noted that he could still cooperate with the District Attorney at a later time.

… [We conclude that defendant clearly invoked his right to counsel. Although the first two alleged invocations … did not constitute requests for an attorney, they nevertheless serve to indicate that the subject of obtaining a lawyer was on defendant’s mind while he was being questioned. … [O]nce the interrogation moved to the underlying incident, defendant “articulated his desire to have counsel present such that a reasonable police officer should have understood that he was requesting an attorney” … . Accordingly, any statements made by defendant thereafter should have been suppressed … . People v Lipka, 2024 NY Slip Op 05153, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s statements “that’s what I want a lawyer for,” he was “scared to talk,” and he “could still cooperate later” constituted an unequivocal request for counsel. Statements made thereafter should have been suppressed.

 

,

THE DELAY IN PRODUCING THE DEFENDANT FOR ARRAIGNMENT AFTER THE PEOPLE BECAME AWARE HE WAS IN CUSTODY WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PEOPLE (A “CONTRADICTORY HOLDING” BY THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT WAS NOTED); DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the People were not timely ready for trial and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move for dismissal on “speedy trial” grounds:

… [T]he People became aware that defendant was in the custody of DOCCS at the May 13, 2019 appearance, and they requested to have the arraignment adjourned to “May 28th, as soon as we can get [defendant] from downstate.” Yet, the record reflects that the People engaged in no efforts to have defendant produced until May 29, when they filed their application pursuant to CPL 560.10, and we reject their generic assertion that this constituted diligent and reasonable efforts … . The People could not proceed to trial without having first arraigned defendant and because the delay was caused by the People’s own inaction, the 16 days from May 13 through May 29 are chargeable to the People, thus exceeding the seven days remaining on the speedy trial clock. As such, we conclude that the People were not ready for trial within the applicable six-month statutory period … .

Having concluded that defense counsel failed to make a meritorious speedy trial motion, we must determine whether this failure, alone, was so egregious and prejudicial as to amount to ineffective assistance … . We reject the People’s contention that this speedy trial motion involved the resolution of various novel and complex issues … , as it has long been settled in this Department that CPL 560.10 (1) (a) imposes upon the People a “responsibility to petition the trial court for an order producing defendant for ‘arraignment or prosecution’ ” … — a principle which is not diminished by the Fourth Department’s contradictory holding in People v Taylor (57 AD3d at 1518-1519 …). As such, and noting that the timeline underlying the speedy trial analysis is uncontroverted, we find that defendant was denied meaningful representation due to defense counsel’s failure to pursue a meritorious speedy trial motion and, thus, his motion to vacate should have been granted … .. Lastly, as the time to prosecute defendant under this indictment has expired, the indictment must be dismissed. People v Shuler, 2024 NY Slip Op 05154, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: In the Third Department [but apparently not in the Fourth Department (People v Taylor (57 AD3d at 1518-1519)?] any delay in producing a defendant for arraignment after the People become aware the defendant is in custody is attributable to the People.

Practice Point: Defense counsel’s failure to move to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds is ineffective assistance.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INTOXICATION JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the denial of defendant’s request for the intoxication jury instruction was reversible error:

… County Court improperly refused to instruct the jury as to the defense of intoxication. “An intoxication charge is warranted if, viewing the evidence in the 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 the element of intent on that basis” … . The charge should be given when there is “evidence of the recent use of intoxicants of such nature or quantity to support the inference that their ingestion was sufficient to affect defendant’s ability to form the necessary criminal intent” … . It is true that more is required than “a bare assertion by a defendant that he was intoxicated,” but the threshold to demonstrate entitlement to the charge is nevertheless “relatively low” … . We find that the evidence presented at trial regarding defendant’s consumption of alcohol during the afternoon and evening on the date in question easily surpassed this low bar. People v Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 05158, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: The evidence of defendant’s consumption of alcohol was more than sufficient to warrant instructing the jury on the intoxication defense.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the denial of defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction was reversible error:

As held by the Court of Appeals in People v Boone (30 NY3d 521 [2017]), “when identification is an issue in a criminal case and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, upon request, a party is entitled to a charge on cross-racial identification” … . Here, at the close of proof, defendant requested that the jury be given a cross-racial identification instruction pursuant to Boone. County Court denied his request noting, among other things, that in the present case, the identifying witness … knew defendant. County Court, however, misinterpreted the Boone standard and erred in denying defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction upon defendant’s request for same … . People v Alexander, 2024 NY Slip Op 05160, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Where the witness who identifies the defendant as the perpetrator and the defendant appear to be of different races, defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction must be granted.

 

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