You are here: / Criminal Law

Failure to Provide Reason for Denial of Youthful Offender Status Required Remittal

The Second Department remitted the matter to Supreme Court because Supreme Court did not place on the record its reasons for denying youthful offender status to the defendant, and there was no indication that Supreme Court considered whether to afford defendant youthful offender status:

In People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497, 499), the Court of Appeals held that compliance with CPL 720.20(1), which provides that the sentencing court “must” determine whether an eligible defendant is to be treated as a youthful offender, “cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request.” Compliance with CPL 720.20(1) requires that the sentencing court actually consider and make an independent determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment … . Here, the Supreme Court stated that “[t]here is no youthful offender adjudication” when it imposed sentence in accordance with the defendant’s plea agreement. However, the court did not place on the record any reason for not adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it actually independently considered youthful offender treatment instead of denying such treatment because it was not part of the plea agreement. Under these circumstances, we vacate the defendant’s sentence, and remit the matter … for a determination of whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment. People v T.E., 2015 NY Slip Op 06827, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

,

County Court Should Not Have Dismissed the Indictment on a Ground Not Raised by the Defendant Without Giving the People the Opportunity to Address the Issue

After reviewing the grand jury testimony, County Court dismissed the indictment on a ground (the complainant’s lack of testimonial capacity) not raised in defendant’s omnibus motion.  The Second Department reversed because the People had not been given the opportunity to address the issue:

In an omnibus motion, the defendant sought, inter alia, to dismiss the indictment on the general grounds that the grand jury proceedings were defective and that the charges were not supported by legally sufficient evidence before the grand jury. The County Court, upon its own examination of the grand jury minutes, determined, sua sponte, that there was an issue as to the complainant’s testimonial capacity, and dismissed the indictment on the ground that the complainant lacked testimonial capacity.

The County Court erred in dismissing the indictment based upon a specific defect in the grand jury proceedings not raised by the defendant, without affording the People notice of the specific defect and an opportunity to respond. A motion to dismiss an indictment pursuant to CPL 210.20 must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the People (see CPL 210.45[1]). Moreover, “orderly procedures require that the People be given the opportunity to address any alleged defects prior to dismissal of an indictment”… . People v Coleman, 2015 NY Slip Op 06676, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

,

Evidence of Photo-Array Identification Properly Allowed to Counter Inference Line-Up Was Suggestive (Defendant Restrained in Line-Up)

The Second Department determined the identification of the defendant in a photo-array was properly allowed in evidence because the defendant was restrained in the line-up, which could give rise to an inference the line-up was suggestive:

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly allowed the admission of evidence concerning the pretrial photographic identification of the defendant made by one of the two complainants. The evidence elicited at a suppression hearing established that the defendant had to be restrained during the lineup at which the complainants identified him due to his uncooperative behavior. Since the restraint of the defendant during the lineup could give rise to an inference that the lineup was suggestive, and the lineup identification made by the complainants was therefore unreliable, the People were properly permitted to counter this inference by introducing evidence of the prior photographic identification… . People v Adamson, 2015 NY Slip Op 06672, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

,

Unduly Suggestive Line-Up Required a New Trial

The Second Department ordered a new trial because the hearing court erroneously concluded the line-up was not unduly suggestive. The defendant was the only person in the line-up wearing a red shirt (which was a prominent part of the description of the assailant by the complainant).  A new trial was necessary because the People did not have the opportunity to demonstrate whether there was an independent source for the complainant’s identification:

The hearing court erred in concluding that the pretrial identification procedure, a lineup, was not unduly suggestive. The defendant was conspicuously displayed in that lineup. He was the only lineup participant dressed in a red shirt, the item of clothing which figured prominently in the description of the assailant’s clothing that the complainant gave to the police. Thus, at the lineup, the defendant’s red shirt improperly drew attention to his person … .

The hearing court’s erroneous determination effectively precluded the People from proffering evidence as to whether there was an independent source for the complainant’s in-court identification. Since the People did not have an opportunity to establish the existence of an independent source, if any, a new trial is required, to be preceded by an independent source hearing … . People v Pena, 2015 NY Slip Op 06681, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

, ,

Licensing Officer Has Broad Discretion Re: Denial of Application for a Pistol Permit

In upholding the denial of an application for a pistol permit, the Second Department explained the broad discretion afforded the licensing officer:

Penal Law § 400.00(1), which sets forth the eligibility requirements for obtaining a pistol license, requires, inter alia, that the applicant be at least 21 years of age, of good moral character with no prior convictions of a felony or serious offense, who has not had a license revoked or who is not under a suspension or ineligibility order, and a person “concerning whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license” (Penal Law § 400.00[1][n]…). “A pistol licensing officer has broad discretion in ruling on permit applications and may deny an application for any good cause” (… see Penal Law § 400.00[1][n]…).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the licensing officer’s determination that good cause existed to deny the application was not arbitrary and capricious. The determination was rationally based, inter alia, on the petitioner’s criminal history … . Moreover, the licensing officer, by her own observation, found that the petitioner had issues with judgment, credibility, the ability to stay in control, and general moral fitness. Matter of Lawtone-Bowles v Klein, 2015 NY Slip Op 06669, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

,

Police-Monitored, Recorded Phone Conversation Between Minor Victim and Defendant Was Admissible

In affirming defendant’s conviction, the Fourth Department determined a police-monitored, recorded phone conversation between the minor victim and the defendant was admissible. “Vicarious consent” to the recording was given by the victim’s mother. The court rejected arguments that the conversation was inadmissible because the victim was acting as a police agent and because the conversation constituted an impermissibly deceptive tactic on the part of the police:

We reject defendant’s further contention that the court erred in refusing to suppress statements that he made during a police-monitored telephone conversation with the victim. There is no merit to his contention that the statements were admitted in violation of CPLR 4506 (1). It is well established that one of the parties to a telephone conversation may consent to the wiretapping or recording of the conversation… , and here the victim gave her consent. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the victim, as a minor, could not consent to the recording of her own conversations … . We note in any event that the victim’s mother consented to the recording, and we conclude that the “vicarious consent” exemption applies under the circumstances presented such that the admission of the subject recording was not barred by CPLR 4506 … . Also contrary to defendant’s contention, his statements in the controlled telephone call were not inadmissible pursuant to CPL 60.45. Even assuming, arguendo, that the victim was acting as an agent of the police when she telephoned defendant, the calls were recorded with the victim’s consent …, and “the victim did not make a threat that would create a substantial risk that defendant might falsely incriminate himself” … . We reject defendant’s further contention that the controlled telephone call constituted an unconstitutionally deceptive police tactic. “Deceptive police stratagems in securing a statement need not result in involuntariness without some showing that the deception was so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process or that a promise or threat was made that could induce a false confession’ ” … , and there was no such showing here. People v Bradberry, 2015 NY Slip Op 06609, 4th Dept 8-19-15

 

, ,

Proof of Inability to Control Sexual Behavior (Over and Above Proof of Antisocial Personality Disorder [ASPD]), Deemed Sufficient to Justify Confinement as a Dangerous Sex Offender

After the Court of Appeals determined that Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) was not a sufficient ground for a finding of a “mental abnormality” requiring confinement pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law, Supreme Court vacated its prior adjudication that respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement. The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, over a two-justice dissent, reversed Supreme Court and reinstated the confinement. The majority concluded there was sufficient evidence of mental disorders (over and above ASPD) which rendered respondent unable to control his sexual behavior. The dissenters found the evidence insufficient. Both the majority and the dissent went through the evidence in detail. The majority explained the general analytical criteria:

In order “[t]o demonstrate that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, petitioner was required to prove ‘by clear and convincing evidence that . . . respondent has a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control [his] behavior, that [he] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility'” … . Respondent takes issue with the finding that he suffered from a mental abnormality, i.e., “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him . . . to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in [his] having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [i]…).

Substantive due process requires that evidence of a mental abnormality reflect a “serious difficulty in controlling behavior” that, “when viewed in light of such features of the case as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis, and the severity of the mental abnormality itself, . . . [is] sufficient to distinguish the dangerous sexual offender whose serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjects him [or her] to civil commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case” … . As such, “the New York statutory structure does not run afoul of substantive due process because it requires [petitioner] to prove that the individual is dangerous, and the dangerousness must be coupled with a mental abnormality, which — by definition — incorporates the additional requirement that the offender have serious difficulty with behavioral control” … . The Court of Appeals has determined that a diagnosis of ASPD, without more, does not meet that requirement, as it “establishes only a general tendency toward criminality, and has no necessary relationship to a difficulty in controlling one’s sexual behavior” … . Matter of State of New York v Richard TT., 2015 NY Slip Op 06557, 3rd Dept 8-13-15

 

,

Evidence of Shooting Committed by Defendant’s Twin Brother Was Highly Prejudicial and Had No Bearing Upon Defendant’s Guilt—Murder Conviction Reversed

The Second Department determined defendant’s murder convictIon must be reversed because evidence of a shooting committed by defendant’s twin brother should not have been admitted. This highly prejudicial evidence had no bearing on defendant’s culpability:

“Evidence of uncharged crimes or crimes committed by a person other than the defendant is generally inadmissible because it is highly prejudicial with little probative value” … . Here, the evidence of the unrelated shooting was admitted in response to evidence introduced by the defense to show that the defendant and his uncharged accomplices exhibited a calm demeanor shortly after the shooting at the garage and that such a demeanor was inconsistent with the People’s contention that they had been recently involved in a violent crime. The People argued that evidence of the unrelated shooting was relevant to this case on the ground that it showed that the defendant’s identical twin brother had similarly exhibited a calm demeanor after he shot an individual at a bar on a prior occasion.

Evidence that the defendant’s identical twin brother had perpetrated a separate shooting less than two months prior to the shooting in this case was highly prejudicial to the defendant and had no bearing whatsoever on the defendant’s culpability for the crimes charged … . This evidence “served no purpose other than to raise an inference of guilt by association” … . People v Grigoroff, 2015 NY Slip Op 06517, 2nd Dept 8-12-15

 

,

Odor of Marihuana Provided Probable Cause to Search Defendant’s Car and Person

The Second Department determined the odor of marihuana coming from inside defendant’s car provided the police with probable cause to search defendant’s car and person:

… [T]he police had probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle and his person. An officer testified at the suppression hearing that he detected the odor of marihuana emanating from inside the vehicle through the open front windows. He further testified that he had been trained in the detection of marihuana and had made hundreds of drug arrests. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, “[t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause” to search a vehicle and its occupants.. . People v McLaren, 2015 NY Slip Op 06522, 2nd Dept 8-12-15

 

,

Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Present Expert Evidence Re: False Confessions—Criteria Explained—New Trial Ordered

The Second Department addressed several significant issues in a lengthy decision ordering a new trial in a murder case (which will be the defendant’s fifth trial in the matter). Although the defendant’s girlfriend had testified against the defendant in prior proceedings, she feigned a loss of memory and refused to testify in the most recent trial. County Court properly held that the girlfriend was “unavailable” within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law 670.10 thereby allowing her prior testimony to be read into evidence. County Court should not, however, have allowed the People to amend the bill of particulars which, in response to the defendant’s alibi evidence presented in prior trials, extended the time period in which the crimes were alleged to have occurred. The focus of the decision, and the reason for reversal, was County Court’s error in excluding defendant’s expert testimony about false confessions. The confession was the principal evidence in the People’s case and was the product of seven hours of interrogation, 75 minutes of which was videotaped. The Second Department addressed the issue in depth:

Here … the proffered expert testimony was relevant to this particular defendant and the particular circumstances of the case, including the approximately seven-hour interrogation, the videotaped confession, and the lack of physical evidence or eyewitness testimony linking the defendant to the crime … .

In addition to reports from two relevant experts, the County Court was presented with a 75-minute video of the defendant’s late-night confession, taken after the defendant was in custody for almost 14 hours and interrogated for approximately 7 of those almost 14 hours. Among other things, the video shows that the defendant, whose hands were cuffed in front of him during the interview, spoke slowly and sat in a slouched position for a substantial portion of the interview. Further, the officers repeatedly employed suggestive and leading questions, fed the defendant specific details related to the crime scene, and used rapport-building techniques. * * *

Upon our consideration of the submissions and opinions of both experts, we find that the defendant made a thorough proffer that he was “more likely to be coerced into giving a false confession” than other individuals. His proffer clearly indicated that he was intellectually impaired, highly compliant, and suffered from a diagnosable psychiatric disorder, and also that the techniques used during the interrogation were likely to elicit a false confession from him … . Moreover, in light of the foregoing, the fact that no one had videotaped the nearly six hours of the interrogation that had been conducted before the confession was made raises significant concerns. People v Days, 2015 NY Slip Op 06731, 2nd Dept 9-2-15

 

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