You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Proof of the Dog’s Emaciated Condition Supported Defendant’s Conviction of the Violation of Agriculture and Markets Law 353

The Court of Appeals determined the proof of the emaciated condition of defendant’s dog supported the defendant’s conviction for a violation of Agriculture and Markets Law 353 which prohibits depriving an animal of necessary sustenance. On appeal the defendant argued the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that a conviction required proof of a mens rea, i.e., that defendant knowingly deprived or neglected the dog. The Court of Appeals did not address the defendant’s argument, finding that the proof of the dog’s condition alone supported the conviction.  People v Basile, 2015 NY Slip Op 05623, CtApp 7-1-15

 

,

Defense Counsel’s Failure to Object to the Prosecutor’s Mischaracterization of the Strength and Meaning of DNA Evidence Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, reversed the Appellate Divsion and determined defendant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. In her summation, the prosecutor mischaracterized the strength and meaning of the DNA evidence. Defense counsel had effectively, through cross-examination, called into question the strength and meaning of the DNA evidence. But defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s unsubstantiated claims in her summation. The court concluded the failure to object could not be justified as a viable defense strategy and required reversal:

The People’s case was circumstantial because there were no eyewitnesses to the crime and no forensic evidence that clearly established defendant’s guilt. Other than testimony that placed defendant and others in the victim’s company around the time of her death, and defendant’s statement that he engaged in consensual sex with the victim, the People had no evidence that linked her to defendant. To meet the People’s burden of proof, the prosecutor relied heavily on the results of DNA testing to connect defendant to the murder. However, the DNA analysis was also circumstantial because it did not “match” defendant’s DNA to the DNA collected at the crime scene. Instead, the test only indicated that defendant could not be excluded from the pool of male DNA contributors, and the expert testimony provided no statistical comparison to measure the significance of those results.

Notwithstanding the known limitations of this DNA evidence and the indeterminate conclusions about the test results drawn by the People’s own experts, the prosecutor in summation misrepresented the DNA analysis, including arguing the evidence established that defendant’s DNA was at the crime scene and on a critical piece of evidence linked to the victim’s murder. In light of the powerful influence of DNA evidence on juries, the opportunity for juror confusion regarding the limited probative value of the DNA methodology employed in this case, and the qualified nature of the test results, defense counsel’s failure to object rendered him ineffective. People v Wright, 2015 NY Slip Op 05621, CtApp 7-1-15

 

Warrantless Arrest in Doorway of Defendant’s Apartment Did Not Violate the Payton Rule

The Second Department determined the warrantless arrest of the defendant in the doorway of his apartment did not violate the “Payton” rule which prohibits warrantless arrests in the home:

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his arrest did not violate his rights under Payton v New York (445 US 573) and People v Levan (62 NY2d 139, 144). “The rule announced in Payton and applied in Levan is clear and easily understood: a person enjoys enhanced constitutional protection from a warrantless arrest in the interior of the home, but not on the threshold itself or the exterior” … . As pertinent to this case, where the defendant lived in the upstairs apartment of a building containing two separate apartments, there is clearly a “distinction between homes and common areas such as halls and lobbies . . . which are not within an individual tenant’s zone of privacy” … .

Here, the hearing evidence demonstrated that the police entered the building the defendant lived in through the front door. Thereafter, they passed through a vestibule before climbing the stairs to the defendant’s upstairs apartment. One of the officers knocked on the closed apartment door, the defendant opened it, and the officer effectuated the arrest in the doorway. The arresting officer did not go inside the defendant’s apartment …, or reach in to pull the defendant out … . Since the defendant was arrested at the threshold of his apartment, after he “voluntarily emerged [and thereby] surrendered the enhanced constitutional protection of the home” …, his warrantless arrest did not violate Payton and Levan … . People v Garvin, 2015 NY Slip Op 05695, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

Judge’s Failure to Properly Handle Note from Jury Was Reversible Error

The Second Department determined the trial judge’s failure to follow the proper procedure for answering a note from the jury was reversible error.  The jury sent out a note requesting a readback of alibi testimony. Just after that note was read to the jury and the parties for the first time, the trial judge read a second note which indicated the jury had reached a verdict.  Without addressing the first note, the verdict was pronounced. Defense counsel was not alerted to the contents of the first note or the judge’s intended response and was not given a chance to suggest a response before the jury was called in. a violation of CPL (Criminal Procedure Law 310.30):

A court’s ” core responsibility under the statute is both to give meaningful notice to counsel of the specific content of the jurors’ request—in order to ensure counsel’s opportunity to frame intelligent suggestions for the fairest and least prejudicial response—and to provide a meaningful response to the jury'” … . “Where the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note . . . preservation is not required” … . Furthermore, “we cannot assume that [such an] omission was remedied at an off-the-record conference that the transcript does not refer to” … .

Here, the jury note requested a readback of the defense witnesses’ alibi testimony. This note was read for the first time on the record before all parties and the jury. Immediately thereafter, the trial court read a second note from the jury advising that a verdict had been reached, at which point the verdict was pronounced. The trial court failed to meet its “core responsibilities” …, since defense counsel was not alerted on the record to the contents of the note and to the court’s intended response, or nonresponse, prior to calling back the jury (see id.). “[A]lthough a defense counsel who is given notice of the trial court’s intended response might be expected to object at a time when counsel had an opportunity to ask [the court] to alter course’ … counsel here had no such opportunity because he learned of the trial court’s response at the same time the jury heard it” … . The defendant was thus deprived of any opportunity to voice opposition to the trial court’s decision to pass over the first note and proceed directly to the verdict without further inquiry. People v Wiggs, 2015 NY Slip Op 05707, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

,

Warrantless Search of Parolee’s Car by Detective Was Valid–Detective Was Effectively Functioning As a Parole Officer, Was Aware of an Arrest Warrant Based Upon Defendant’s Alleged Parole Violations, and Was Aware the Defendant, as a Parolee, Had Consented In Writing to the Search of His Person and Property

The Second Department determined the warrantless search of a parolee’s car by a detective who was exercising parole-warrant responsibilities was valid. The detective was aware of defendant’s parole violations and the related warrant for defendant’s arrest. The detective was also aware that defendant, as a parolee, had consented in writing the search of his person and property:

While a person on parole is not denied the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the status of a parolee is always relevant and may be critical in evaluating the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure. A search which would be unlawful if directed against an ordinary citizen may be proper if conducted against a parolee … . The special circumstances and close supervision that come with being a parolee must be considered when determining if a search is reasonable … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the detective’s search of the car was “rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duty” by dint of the detective’s parole responsibilities as a member of the Joint Apprehension Warrant Squad … . Here, no relevant distinction exists between the detective and the defendant’s parole officer … . At the time of the search, the detective was aware that the defendant had violated the terms of his parole, that as a result a warrant had been issued for the defendant’s arrest …, and that the defendant had consented in writing to a search of his person and property. Additionally, the detective was aware that the car was registered to the defendant, the defendant had acknowledged that the car was his, and a known source had said that she had been told that the defendant had just been in the car with a gun … . People v McMillan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05702, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

,

The People Were Required to Give Pre-Trial Notice of an Out-of-Court Identification of Defendant by Officer Viewing the Controlled Buy from Across the Street—Identification Was Not So Free From the Risk of Undue Suggestiveness that It Could Be Considered Merely “Confirmatory”—Error Was Harmless In the Face of Overwhelming Evidence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the People were required to provide the pre-trial statutory notice of the intent to introduce evidence of an out-of-court identification of the defendant by the officer (Detective Vanacore) who viewed the underlying controlled drug purchase (by an undercover officer) from across the street. The error was deemed harmless however.  Noting that the identification at issue was not so free from the risk of undue suggestiveness as to render the identification merely “confirmatory,” the court offered a clear explanation of the reasons for the statutory pre-trial notice requirement:

“CPL 710.30 could not be clearer” … . When the People intend to offer at trial “testimony regarding an observation of the defendant either at the time or place of the commission of the offense or upon some other occasion relevant to the case, to be given by a witness who has previously identified him as such,” the statute requires the People to notify the defense of such intention within 15 days after arraignment and before trial (CPL 710.30 [1] [b]). Not only is “[t]he statutory mandate . . . plain” but the procedure is “simple” … . The People serve their notice upon defendant, the defendant has an opportunity to move to suppress and the court may hold a Wade hearing (see id.). If the People fail to provide notice, the prosecution may be precluded from introducing such evidence at trial.

The notice statute was “a legislative response to the problem of suggestive and misleading pretrial identification procedures” … . In enacting the notice requirement, the Legislature “attempt[ed] to deal effectively with the reality that not all police-arranged identifications are free from unconstitutional taint” … .

The purpose of the notice requirement is two-fold: it provides the defense with “an opportunity, prior to trial, to investigate the circumstances of the [evidence procured by the state] and prepare the defense accordingly” and “permits an orderly hearing and determination of the issue of the fact . . . thereby preventing the interruption of trial to challenge initially the admission into evidence of the [identification]” … . Thus, the statute contemplates “pretrial resolution of the admissibility of identification testimony where it is alleged that an improper procedure occurred” … . * * *

Detective Vanacore’s surveillance of defendant does not constitute an “observation of . . . defendant . . . so clear that the identification could not be mistaken” thereby obviating the risk of undue suggestiveness … . Therefore, the People were required to serve their notice concerning Detective Vanacore’s observations. People v Pacquette, 2015 NY Slip Op 05595, CtApp 6-30-15

 

,

“Continuity” Element of a Criminal Enterprise Explained—Substantive Arguments Re: the Erroneous Use of “And” Instead of “Or” In the Jury Instructions and the “Ineffective Assistance” Stemming from the Failure to Object to the Instructions–the Majority Held the Error Was Not Preserved and the Seriousness of the Error Was Not So Clear-Cut as to Implicate Ineffective Assistance–the Dissent Argued the Jury-Instruction Error Was Preserved and Was Reversible

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissent, affirmed the defendants’ enterprise corruption convictions. The enterprise here involved a doctor and a chiropractor (the defendants), medical clinics, faked accidents, faked injuries, kickbacks to lawyers, fraudulent insurance claims, etc. The court explained that there is no requirement that the People prove the enterprise would continue in the absence of a key participant to demonstrate the “continuity” element of the enterprise, i.e., that the “structure [of the enterprise is] distinct from the predicate illicit pattern.” In addition, the majority determined an acknowledged jury-instruction error (using “and” instead of “or”) was unpreserved, and rejected an ineffective assistance argument which was based on the failure to object to the erroneous jury charge.  In rejecting the ineffective assistance argument, the majority noted that whether the jury-instruction error was reversible was a close question. If the error had been clearly reversible, the majority explained, the ineffective assistance argument would have prevailed. The dissent argued that the jury-instruction error was preserved and constituted reversible error. The jury-instruction and ineffective assistance discussions, like the enterprise corruption discussion, are extensive and substantive.  With respect to the proof requirements for the “continuity” element of enterprise corruption, the court wrote:

Were the People required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a criminal enterprise would survive the removal of a key participant, it would be impossible in most cases to demonstrate the existence of a criminal enterprise. Except where the leading participant was in fact removed some time before the enterprise disbanded, the People would be expected to prove an unknowable proposition concerning a counterfactual scenario in which events occurred differently from the actual world. We have never required such an exercise. Moreover, there is no reason to treat a criminal structure as less deserving of enhanced penalty if its key figure is so essential to the organization that his or her absence would threaten its criminal agenda. A criminal enterprise is no less a criminal enterprise if it has a powerful leader. Finally, if we were to require a criminal enterprise to be able to survive the removal of a key figure, criminal organizations could avoid enhanced penalties simply by placing all control in the hands of one person. It cannot have been the intent of the Legislature to allow such a loophole.

Instead, what is meant by the continuity element of the statute is that to be a criminal enterprise, an organization must continue “beyond the scope of individual criminal incidents” (Penal Law § 460.10 [3]), and must possess “constancy and capacity exceeding the individual crimes committed under the association’s auspices or for its purposes” … . In other words, the requirement is not that the group would continue in the absence of a key participant, but rather that it continues to exist beyond individual criminal incidents. A team of people who unite to carry out a single crime or a brief series of crimes may lack structure and criminal purpose beyond the criminal actions they carry out; such an ad hoc group is not a criminal enterprise. If a group persists, however, in the form of a “structured, purposeful criminal organization” (id. at 659), beyond the time required to commit individual crimes, the continuity element of criminal enterprise is met. People v Keschner, 2015 NY Slip Op 05596, CtApp 6-30-15

 

Entering the Victim’s Domicile With the Intent to Assault the Victim Who Died from His Injuries Constitutes Felony Murder (Murder Committed During a Burglary)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined defendant’s felony murder conviction should stand. There was evidence the defendant entered the victim’s apartment intending to assault, not kill, the victim. Therefore the defendant’s causing the death of the victim in the course of the burglary constituted felony murder. The question whether entering the apartment with the intent to kill, and thereafter killing the victim, would also constitute felony murder remains unanswered. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the felony murder statute requires that the death be caused in order to advance the underlying felony, finding that the statute requires only a logical nexus between a murder and a felony:

Noting the Legislature’s inclusion of burglary of all degrees, without qualification, as a predicate felony for felony murder, we observed “that persons within domiciles are in greater peril from those entering the domicile with criminal intent, than persons on the street who are being subjected to the same criminal intent. Thus, the burglary statutes prescribe greater punishment for a criminal act committed within the domicile than for the same act committed on the street” … . It is clear that the Legislature chose to treat burglary differently than other crimes. Therefore, an individual who approaches another on the street with an intent to assault but causes the death of that person could be convicted of manslaughter, but not felony murder. It is entirely reasonable, however, that a person — like defendant — who unlawfully enters a building with the intent to commit an assault therein, but causes the death of another, may be convicted of felony murder, in recognition that the homicide occurs in the context of other criminal activity that enhances the seriousness of the offense. * * *

Defendant also argues that his felony murder conviction rests on legally insufficient evidence because there is no evidence that he committed the murder “in the furtherance of” a burglary. He asserts that the statutory language “in the furtherance of” requires that the death be caused in order to advance or promote the underlying felony. We have not interpreted “in the furtherance of” so narrowly. The felony murder statute is intended to punish a perpetrator for a death he or she caused during the commission of a felony, but not a death that is coincidental to the felony … . The “in furtherance of” element requires “a logical nexus between a murder and a felony” … . Here, there is a clear logical nexus between defendant’s felony of unlawfully entering the victim’s apartment to assault him and the homicide, which was certainly not coincidental. People v Henderson, 2015 NY Slip Op 05592, CtApp 6-30-15

 

,

Failure to Make Clear in the Jury Instructions that the Acquittal on the Top Count Based Upon the Justification Defense Required Acquittal on the Lesser Counts As Well Rendered the Verdict “Ambiguous”—New Trial Ordered in the Interest of Justice

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, exercising the court’s “interest of justice” jurisdiction, determined defendant was entitled to a new trial because the jury instructions did not make clear that, if the jury found the defendant’s actions justified (self-defense), acquittal on all counts was mandatory. The defendant was charged with attempted murder, attempted assault in the first degree, and assault second degree stemming from a stabbing. There was evidence defendant may have acted in self-defense.  Therefore the jury was given the justification-defense instruction. The jury found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of the lesser two counts. If the not guilty verdict was based on the justification defense, then the defendant should have been acquitted of all charges. The jury instructions did not make the effect of finding the defendant’s acts justified clear. Because it could not be discerned whether the jury acquitted the defendant of attempted murder based on the justification defense, the verdict was ambiguous and a new trial was required, notwithstanding that the error in the jury instructions was not preserved:

On this record, review of the issue in the interest of justice is warranted because it is impossible to discern whether acquittal of the top count of attempted murder in the second degree was based on the jurors’ finding of justification so as to mandate acquittal on the two lesser counts. While lack of justification was included as an element of each crime, the verdict sheet and the court’s accompanying explanation created confusion, because they indicated among other things that the jurors “must consider” count three irrespective of their disposition of higher counts and they failed to explicitly convey that a finding of justification on the top count precluded further deliberation. While the trial court did follow the CJI justification instruction in its charge, it also included as an element of each offense “[t]hat the defendant was not justified,” which may have led the jurors to conclude that deliberation on each crime required reconsideration of the justification defense, even if they had already acquitted the defendant of the top count of attempted murder in the second degree based on justification. People v Velez, 2015 NY Slip Op 05619, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

,

Stipulation of Forfeiture of a Sum of Money Was Part of the Judgment of Conviction and Therefore Was Reviewable on Appeal from the Judgment of Conviction

The First Department, over a dissent, determined a stipulation of forfeiture of a sum of money entered by the defendant was part of the judgment of conviction, and was therefore reviewable on appeal. The dissent argued that appeal should have been dismissed because the forfeiture was not part of the judgment of conviction and was therefore not reviewable.  The forfeiture was ultimately affirmed on the merits:

At the outset, we reject the People’s contention, adopted by the dissent, that this appeal is not properly before us because the forfeiture was not part of the judgment of conviction. Pursuant to Penal Law § 60.30, a court has the authority to order a forfeiture of property, and any order exercising that authority “may be included as part of the judgment of conviction.” In People v Detres-Perez (127 AD3d 535 [1st Dept 2015]), relying on Penal Law § 60.30, this Court recently found that a forfeiture agreement was part of the judgment of conviction and thus reviewable on the appeal from the judgment. Likewise here, the court’s so-ordering of the stipulation at the time of sentencing rendered it part of the judgment of conviction and reviewable on this appeal as of right (see CPL 450.10). Contrary to the dissent’s position, we do not conclude that Penal Law § 60.30 authorizes the inclusion of forfeiture as part of a defendant’s sentence. Rather, that provision allows a court to order forfeiture as a separate component of the judgment of conviction… . … Finally, the omission of the forfeiture order from the sentence and commitment sheet does not render the order unreviewable since a forfeiture, although not a component of a criminal sentence, can nevertheless be part of the judgment of conviction … . People v Burgos, 2015 NY Slip Op 05600, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

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