You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction, Supported by Evidence that (1) the People May Have Violated Their “Brady” Obligation to Inform the Defense of a Plea Deal Made In Return for Testimony and (2) a Juror May Have Had a Mental Disability, Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing

The Fourth Department determined defendant had made sufficient evidentiary showings that (1) the People may have failed to inform the defense of a plea bargain made with the codefendant in return for testimony against the defendant, and (2) a juror may have been unqualified due to a mental disability.  Therefore defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without a hearing;

Defendant moved to vacate the judgment on two grounds, neither of which may be decided without a hearing. First, he contended that the People violated their Brady obligation because they failed to disclose that they made a specific plea agreement with the codefendant at the start of the proceedings, contingent upon the codefendant testifying against defendant. Defendant contended that the People effectuated that agreement by, among other things, obtaining an indictment charging the codefendant with a lower level crime than the class B violent felony that was lodged against defendant, to avoid the plea bargaining restrictions in CPL 220.10 (5) (d) (ii), and by agreeing that the codefendant could withdraw his plea to the lower level felony and plead guilty to a misdemeanor if he cooperated against defendant. Defendant submitted evidence in support of his contentions, including transcripts of the prosecutor’s statements in the codefendant’s case regarding the agreement, and those transcripts also established that the prosecutor had discussed the agreement with the victim before it was implemented. * * *

The second ground advanced by defendant in support of his CPL article 440 motion was that a juror lacked the capacity to serve on the jury, and that the juror had misrepresented his employment status in response to questioning by the court. Defendant submitted some evidence establishing that the prospective juror may be developmentally disabled and that he may have misrepresented his prior and current employment, but defendant’s investigator was unable to obtain more information without judicial subpoenas that the court declined to provide. Inasmuch as defendant submitted evidence that called into question “whether this particular juror should have been entrusted with the responsibilities of fact finding [because the juror] did not understand the lawyers or the judge” …, the court further erred in denying the motion on the ground that the issue could be decided on direct appeal. People v Bailey, 2015 NY Slip Op 04987, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

, ,

New Evidence Demonstrated the Declarant, Not the Defendant, Committed the Murders of Which Defendant Was Convicted—Motion to Vacate Defendants’ Convictions Properly Granted

The Fourth Department affirmed County Court’s vacation of defendant’s murder convictions, after a hearing, based upon newly discovered evidence. Although the “declarant” did not testify, witnesses testified declarant admitted killing the two persons defendant had been convicted of murdering. There was considerable evidence supporting the reliability of the declarant’s statements. The court noted that the declarant’s statements were admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule as “statements against penal interest” and it was reasonable to assume the declarant was “unavailable” (a requirement for admissibility) because he would assert his right to remain silent if called as a witness. The court further noted that the testimony of declarant’s ex-wife was not protected by spousal privilege. Declarant’s threat to kill his wife if she reported the murders to the police removed the “communications from the protection of privilege:”

Contrary to the People’s contention, County Court properly determined, following a hearing, that defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that “[n]ew evidence has been discovered since the entry of [the] judgment . . . , which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.10 [1] [g]; see CPL 440.40 [6]). People v Pierre, 2015 NY Slip Op 04985, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

,

Sentence Vacated—Sentencing Judge Relied on Materially Untrue Assumptions and Misinformation About Defendant’s Criminal History

Although the error was not preserved, the Fourth Department, in the interest of justice, determined defendant’s sentence should be vacated.  At sentencing, the judge made statements alleging past criminal acts by the defendant which were unsupported by the record:

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in sentencing defendant on the basis of “materially untrue assumptions or misinformation” … . Here, the court characterized defendant as having been involved in “more than 40 residential burglaries” and “all the tens of burglaries,” but those statements are unsupported by the record and therefore constitute improper speculation… . People v Mcknight, 2015 NY Slip Op 04961, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

Sworn Juror Who Was From the Same Neighborhood as Defendant Stated His Fear of Drug Dealers Would Prevent Him from Reaching an Impartial Verdict—the Juror Was Properly Discharged as “Grossly Unqualified” and “For Cause” Based Upon a Newly Discovered Ground

The First Department determined a sworn juror was properly discharged as “grossly unqualified,” as well as “for cause.” The juror lived in the neighborhood where the crime occurred and where defendant and his accomplices lived. The juror told the court that his fear of drug dealers in his neighborhood would prevent him from reaching an impartial verdict. The juror had not mentioned his fear before he was sworn:

The juror’s fear provided grounds for the court to dismiss him as “grossly unqualified to serve” pursuant to CPL 270.35(1), even if the court did not cite the statutory phrasing, because it was clear that the juror could not remain impartial. Additionally, since the juror had not mentioned that he feared for his safety when questioned by the court and the parties before being sworn, he was properly discharged for cause, on a newly discovered ground, pursuant to CPL 270.15(4). People v Ward, 2015 NY Slip Op 04928, 1st Dept 6-11-15

 

,

Although a Close Case, the Evidence Supported Defendant’s Manslaughter Conviction Under an Accomplice Theory—the Judge’s Informing the Jury of the Correct Dates of the Offense, Outside the Presence of the Parties, with the Parties’ Consent, Was Not a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal

Noting that it was a close case, the Court of Appeals determined the evidence supported defendant’s conviction for manslaughter under an accomplice theory.  Defendant struck the victim with a beer bottle and then chased after another man.  There was conflicting testimony about whether defendant was present when another man who was with the defendant struck the victim with a baseball bat.  Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence of a “community of purpose” among accomplice and principal was sufficient.  Further, the court determined the judge’s correcting an error in the jury instructions by informing the jury of the correct dates of the offenses outside the presence of the parties, but with the parties’ consent, was not a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal. People v Scott, 2015 NY Slip Op 04874, CtApp 6-11-15

 

,

In a Risk Level Modification Proceeding, a Defendant Is Entitled to All the Documents Reviewed by the Board

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined defendant was entitled to access to all the documents reviewed by the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) in connection with the Board’s recommendation that defendant’s classification remain at risk level 3.  However, County Court’s refusal to grant an adjournment to allow defendant to gain access to missing documents (two emails) was not an abuse of discretion. The record evidence in support of the denial of the modification was overwhelming:

Section 168-o (4), applicable when a petitioner seeks modification of the risk level, does not contain any language entitling a petitioner to pre-hearing discovery, but simply provides that a petitioner has a right to submit “any information relevant to the review” (Correction Law § 169-o [2]). Further, the right to petition the sentencing court to be “relieved of any further duty to register” under Correction Law § 168-o (1) does not permit the court to review the correctness of the initial risk level determination (see Correction Law § 168-g [4]…). While there are statutory differences in the two [*5]proceedings, we agree with defendant that the procedural due process rights, in regard to the requested documents, were the same. Thus, defendant was entitled to access to the documents.

Nonetheless, it is well-settled that the decision to grant an adjournment is a matter of discretion for the hearing court … . “When the protection of fundamental rights has been involved in requests for adjournments, that discretionary power has been more narrowly construed” … . Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said the court abused its discretion as a matter of law in failing to adjourn the hearing to gather the two emails. People v Lashway, 2015 NY Slip Op 04877, CtApp 6-11-15

 

Where a Defendant Has Been Convicted of an Armed Felony or an Enumerated Sex Offense Pursuant to CPL (Criminal Procedure Law) 720.10(2)a)(ii ie (iii), Even If the Defendant Has Not Requested or Has Explicitly Waived “Youthful Offender” Status, the Court Must Determine, On the Record, Whether Mitigating Circumstances Exist, and, If So, Must Determine On the Record Whether the Defendant Should Be Adjudicated a Youthful Offender

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a partial three-judge dissent, determined “when a defendant has been convicted of an armed felony or an enumerated sex offense pursuant to CPL 720.10 (2) (a) (ii) or (iii), and the only barrier to his or her youthful offender eligibility is that conviction, the court is required to determine on the record whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3). The court must make such a determination on the record ‘even where [the] 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’ pursuant to a plea bargain … . If the court determines, in its discretion, that neither of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors exist and states the reasons for that determination on the record, no further determination by the court is required. If, however, the court determines that one or more of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors are present, and the defendant is therefore an eligible youth, the court then ‘must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender’ (CPL 720.20 [1]).” People v Middlebrooks, 2015 NY Slip Op 04875, CtApp 6-11-15

 

, , ,

No “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Vehicle Stop—Revocation of License for Refusal of Chemical Test Reversed

Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated and refused the chemical test.  As a result petitioner’s license was revoked by an administrative law judge.  The Second Department annulled the determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board (which upheld the revocation).  The court determined the arresting officer did not have “reasonable suspicion” justifying the initial stop.  Petitioner was in a parked car with the engine running. The officer parked behind petitioner’s car, blocking any exit, and then approached the car. Only then did the officer notice signs of intoxication:

At a hearing held pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, the hearing officer is required to determine, inter alia, whether the police lawfully arrested the operator of the motor vehicle for operating such vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 … . In order for an arrest to be lawful, the initial stop must itself be lawful (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 222). Under the circumstances of this case, where the officer prevented the petitioner from departing, activated his vehicle’s emergency lights, and shined a light into the petitioner’s parked vehicle, a forcible stop and detention occurred … . The Department of Motor Vehicles, however, failed to establish that there was reasonable suspicion to justify the forcible stop and detention of the petitioner’s person or vehicle … and, accordingly, the challenged determination cannot be sustained. Matter of Stewart v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 04857, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

Reverse-Batson Challenge to the Peremptory Challenge of a White Woman by Defense Counsel Properly Sustained/Judge’s Failure to Inform and Seek the Input of the Parties Re: a Jury Note Was a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal

The Second Department determined the trial judge properly sustained the prosecutor’s “reverse-Batson” challenge to a peremptory challenge to a white woman by defense counsel.  Defense counsel’s proffered reason, that the juror had her head down and would be a “wall flower” following others on the jury, was deemed pretextual.  The proffered reason was entirely subjective and was not based upon the voir dire.  Reversal of the conviction was warranted, however, because the trial judge did not inform and seek the input of the parties in response to a jury.  Preservation of the error was not required because the record did not reflect that defense counsel was made aware of the contents of the note prior to the judge’s answering it in the jury’s presence:

“Although not entirely insulated from review, the determination of whether an explanation [of the exercise of a peremptory challenge to a a juror in response to a reverse-Batson challenge by the prosecutor] is merely pretextual is generally a matter for the Trial Judge, whose findings are entitled to great deference” … . This is particularly true where, as here, the reason for challenging a prospective juror is based upon certain nonverbal responses and reactions of the prospective juror, which the trial court had the opportunity to observe … . However, “[a]lthough a proffered race- [or gender-] neutral explanation for the exclusion of a potential juror need not rise to the level required to challenge a venireperson for cause,’ . . . the burden cannot be met by merely claiming good faith and denying discriminatory purpose” … . Here, the reason proffered by defense counsel for exercising the peremptory challenge against the subject prospective juror was that, during voir dire, “[s]he had her head down the entire time and was kind of looking down through this process,” from which counsel concluded that she was “going to be a wall flower[ ] and just kind[ ] of go with the flow.” This explanation was purely intuitive and based on counsel’s subjective impression rather than upon facts adduced at voir dire … . To accept the defendant’s bare assertion, unsupported by any factual basis, that the prospective juror was neutral and would not be a strong juror for the defense would be, in effect, to accept no reason at all … . There is nothing in the record to support defense counsel’s purported conclusion that this prospective juror—a 68-year-old sales associate who had previously sat on a jury, did not know anyone in law enforcement, and, unlike many of the prospective jurors, had not been the victim of a crime—would be a weak juror for the defense. * * *

… [T]he jury advised: “We have one juror that feels she cannot make a decision based on the evidence presented to us.” Instead of marking the note as an exhibit and reading it aloud on the record to the parties prior to calling in the jury, the court read the note on the record for the first time in front of the jurors, and then immediately responded by issuing a truncated Allen charge …, encouraging continuing deliberations. This jury note “called for a substantive response that required careful crafting after hearing argument from both the People and the defense” … . Yet there is no indication that the court provided notice to defense counsel and the prosecutor of the contents of the note or “a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses” … . “[B]y depriving the defendant of meaningful notice of the communication [and] a meaningful opportunity to participate in the formulation of the court’s response,” the court failed to fulfill its “core responsibility” under CPL 310.30, thereby committing an error affecting “the mode of the proceedings” … . Such an error “need not be preserved, and prejudice manifestly results” … . Thus, despite defense counsel’s failure to object to the Supreme Court’s handling of the jury’s notes, reversal is required … .

The People are correct that a timely objection to an alleged O’Rama error may be required where defense counsel had “knowledge of the substance of the court’s intended response” … . However, while the record shows that a discussion was held off the record at the sidebar immediately before the Supreme Court directed the court officer to “bring them in,” it is not evident from the record that defense counsel had knowledge of the contents of the note or how the court would respond to the note. Rather, as far as the record reveals, defense counsel first learned of the court’s response at the same time the jury heard it … . Where a trial transcript does not show compliance with O’Rama’s procedure as required by law, we cannot assume that the omission was remedied at an off-the-record conference that the transcript does not refer to … . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 04860, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

, ,

Seizure of Evidence from the Pocket of the Defendant After a Pat-Down Search on the Street Not Justified Under the “Inevitable Discovery” Exception to the Warrant Requirement—the Doctrine Does Not Apply to “the Very Evidence Obtained in the Illegal Search”—A Justification for the Search and Seizure Not Relied Upon by the People Below Can Not Be Raised on Appeal

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress jewelry taken from his pocket after pat-down search on the street should have been granted.  At the suppression hearing, the People did not argue that the officer who stopped the defendant had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time of the pat-down search.  Therefore, the Second Department noted, that argument could not be raised by the People on appeal. At the suppression hearing, the People argued that the jewelry was admissible under the “inevitable discovery” exception to the warrant requirement. However, the “inevitable discovery” exception does not apply to “the very evidence obtained in the illegal search:”

At the suppression hearing, the People expressly disclaimed reliance on the theory that the search of the defendant and the seizure of the jewelry from his pants pocket was justified because the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the moment he was stopped, and the hearing court did not address that theory. Thus, the People may not assert this theory on appeal … . Instead, the People argued that the jewelry inevitably would have been discovered, and the Supreme Court relied on that theory in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the jewelry. The court properly determined that the record does not support a finding that the police officer legitimately believed that the jewelry might be some kind of weapon … . However, as the People now correctly concede, the court erred in its determination that the jewelry inevitably would have been discovered through normal police procedures, as the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply to primary evidence, that is, “the very evidence obtained in the illegal search,” such as the jewelry at issue here … . Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the jewelry should have been granted. People v Henagin, 2015 NY Slip Op 04864, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

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