You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

IN THIS “ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” AND “FALSIYFING BUSINESS RECORDS” PROSECUTION, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED AFTER A HEARING OF WHICH HE HAD NOTICE AND IN WHICH HE COULD HAVE PARTICIPATED; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE HIS ANSWERING “NO” TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS FALSE; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department reversed defendant’s “attempted criminal possession of a weapon” and “falsifying business records” convictions as against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, when attempting to purchase a shotgun, answered “no” to the question whether he was subject to a court order. Although restraining orders were produced by the People, there was no proof any restraining order “was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate” as required by 18 USC 922 (g) (8) (an element of the charged offenses):

… [T]he People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant attempted to buy a shotgun knowing his possession of same was “prohibited by law” (Penal Law § 265.17 [1]). People v Rock, 2024 NY Slip Op 05162, Third Dept 10-17-24

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING A COLLOQUY TO DETERMINE THE WAIVER WAS VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT; THE INFORMATION IN THE WARRANT DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have summarily denied defendant’s request to represent himself and the motion to suppress evidence retrieved from the defendant’s cell phone should have been granted:

A court may not summarily deny a defendant’s request to represent himself or herself, even if the court believes it to be in the defendant’s best interest to be represented by counsel … . Once defendant made his request, which was unequivocal and timely, County Court was required to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he was making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel … . * * *

… [T]he warrant was supported by [the investigator’s] affidavit, which stated that he believed the phones “may” contain digital data, including call histories, that would evidence the commission of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. However, the statute requires that a statement of reasonable cause based upon information and belief must also state “the sources of such information and the grounds of such belief” (CPL 690.35 [3] [c]), which was lacking here. Stated differently, even where there is probable cause to suspect the defendant of a crime, law enforcement may not search his or her cell phone unless they have information demonstrating that evidence is likely to be found there; some link sufficient to connect the two must be provided. Our review of the affidavit of probable cause in this case reveals no such link. People v Poulos, 2024 NY Slip Op 05152, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: A defendant’s request to represent himself should not be summarily denied. The judge must conduct a colloquy to ensure the waiver of the right to counsel is voluntary and intelligent.

Practice Point: Here the search warrant did not demonstrate probable cause to believe the search of defendant’s cell phone would reveal evidence of criminal possession of a controlled substance.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING THE SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX DISCUSSIONS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF HIS PRIOR CONVICTIONS; THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE ANNOUNCED HIS SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX RULINGS IN THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT ENOUGH; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined defendant had a right to be present during the Sandoval/Molineux discussions concerning the admissibility of defendant’s prior convictions. The fact that the judge announced his rulings in defendant’s presence was not enough:

We reverse defendant’s conviction and grant him a new trial. The trial court held a conference in defendant’s absence on the prosecution’s motion to cross examine him on his prior criminal conduct, in violation of his right to be present (see CPL 260.20 …). The court held a subsequent hearing on the motion in defendant’s presence. However, the court did not hear arguments on the merits, did not confirm defendant’s understanding of the underlying facts or the merits of the application, and merely announced its decision. Thus, the subsequent proceeding did not provide for defendant’s meaningful participation in the determination of the merits of the motion and did not cure the earlier violation. People v Sharp, 2024 NY Slip Op 05132, CtApp 10-17-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s right to be present at trial includes the right to be present during the arguments about the admissibility of defendant’s prior convictions under Sandoval/Molineux. Defendant’s presence when the judge announced the Sandoval/Molineux rulings is not sufficient.

 

, , , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING TO ALLOW REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court and ordering a new SORA risk-level assessment, determined defendant’s attorney’s request for an adjournment to allow review of documents relevant to a downward departure should have been granted:

… County Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied the defendant’s request for an adjournment. The defendant’s open release date two days after the hearing was not a sufficient reason to deny the defendant’s request for an adjournment (see Correction Law § 168-l[8]). Further, the documents discussed by the defendant, including documents relating to his participation in treatment programs, may be relevant to support an application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. “A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of ‘(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the . . . Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence'” … . “In making the determinations the court shall review . . . any relevant materials and evidence submitted by the sex offender” … . “An offender’s response to treatment, if exceptional, can be the basis for a downward departure” … . As the documents cited by the defendant were potentially material, the adjournment request was not made for the purposes of delay, and the necessity of the request was not due to a failure of due diligence, the court should have granted the request to adjourn the SORA hearing so that the defendant’s counsel could review the documents and determine whether they should be offered to the court as evidence at the hearing. People v Eldridge, 2024 NY Slip Op 05117, Second Dept 10-16-24

Practice Point: Here defense counsel’s request for an adjournment of the SORA risk-level proceeding to allow review of documents which may be relevant to a downward departure should have been granted. Defense counsel was not able to meet with the defendant until 15 minutes before the hearing, the request was not made to delay, and the fact that defendant had an upcoming open release date was not a sufficient reason to deny an adjournment.

 

, , ,

THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID SHOWING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY TO THE JURY, EFFECTIVELY REMOVED THE MENS REA ELEMENT OF THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CHARGES FROM THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION; CONVICTION REVERSED ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s child-pornography conviction, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the stipulation signed by defense counsel and presented to the jury (in an effort to avoid showing the pornography to the jury) effectively removed from the jury consideration of the mens rea element. Therefore, defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel:

A few days before the trial commenced, defense counsel and the prosecutor executed a stipulation entitled “Stipulation Elements of Crime.” Among other things, they stipulated to the fact that certain videos underlying the counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child “depicted . . . a performance, which included sexual conduct by a child less than 17 years of age,” and similarly stipulated as to the content of certain images underlying the counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child. …

… [T]he stipulation went on to state, in pertinent part, that “whoever possessed each of the . . . videos, promoted a performance, which included sexual conduct by a child . . . with knowledge of the character and content of the videos,” and “whoever possessed these videos and images, knowingly had in his or her possession or control, or knowingly accessed with intent to view, a performance which included sexual conduct by a child” … . A reasonable reading of this additional language in the stipulation is that possession alone is tantamount to promoting a performance with knowledge “of the character and content of” the videos, which is required to support a conviction of promoting a sexual performance by a child under Penal Law § 263.15, and that possession alone is tantamount to knowing “possession or control” or “access[ ] with intent to view,” which is required to support a conviction of possessing a sexual performance by a child under Penal Law § 263.16. Thus, this additional language in the stipulation set forth definitions of the crimes that had no mens rea element … , under which possession alone could support a guilty verdict for each crime. People v Guerra, 2024 NY Slip Op 04978, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: Defense counsel signed a stipulation in an effort to avoid showing child pornography to the jury. The majority concluded the stipulation effectively eliminated the mens rea element from the jury’s consideration. The conviction was reversed on ineffective assistance grounds.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS DEEMED INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S REPEATED PREJUDICIAL REMARKS MADE TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS (TO THE EFFECT “I CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT BECAUSE I AM NO LONGER A DEFENSE ATTORNEY”), AND FOR AGREEING TO THE JUDGE’S REQUEST TO HAVE THE TWO SIDES ALTERNATE GOING FIRST IN EXERCISING PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES (IN VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW) (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed defendant’s conviction on ineffective-assistance grounds. Defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s repeated statements to prospective jurors that he can sleep at night because he is a prosecutor and no longer a defense attorney. Defense counsel agreed to alter the statutory peremptory juror-challenge procedure, which requires that the People must exercise their peremptory challenges first. Defense counsel agreed to alternate which side went first:

The first error occurred during voir dire when defense counsel failed to object to patently improper comments from the prosecutor regarding his ability to sleep at night now that he is a prosecutor and no longer a defense attorney. Perhaps it was a legitimate strategy for defense counsel not to object to the first improper comment of that nature given that defense counsel may not have wanted to draw more attention to the prejudicial comment. For the same reason, defense counsel might be excused for not objecting when the prosecutor repeated the comment to the same group of prospective jurors. We can discern no legitimate strategy, however, for defense counsel to remain quiet when the prosecutor made the same comment for the third, fourth and fifth times during voir dire. At some point, defense counsel was obligated to protect defendant from the prejudice arising from the repeated acts of prosecutorial misconduct and, at the very least, request a curative instruction from the court.

Defense counsel also erred in not objecting—and, indeed, consenting—to the court’s unlawful procedure of having the parties alternate which side went first in declaring whether they wished to exercise a peremptory challenge to a particular prospective juror. CPL 270.15 (2) provides that the People “must exercise their peremptory challenges first and may not, after the defendant has exercised [the defendant’s] peremptory challenges, make such a challenge to any remaining prospective juror who is then in the jury box.” After the court stated that its practice was to have parties alternate their exercise of peremptory challenges, defense counsel, evidently unaware of the statute’s mandate, said, “I’ll go first. He can go first. I don’t care.” As a result, on numerous occasions during voir dire defense counsel stated whether or not she was peremptorily challenging a prospective juror before the prosecutor was required to state his position.

Although the court’s violation of CPL 270.15 (2) does not constitute a mode of proceedings error, it was certainly prejudicial to defendant and we can conceive of no legitimate strategy for defense counsel’s acquiescence to the unlawful procedure. Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case in totality and as of the time of the representation, “[o]ur review of this record indicates that defendant was not afforded meaningful representation and was therefore deprived of a fair trial” … . People v Stewart, 2024 NY Slip Op 04863, Fourth Dept 10-4-24

Practice Point: Although it is not a mode of proceedings error to alternate which side goes first in exercising peremptory challenges to prospective jurors in violation of the criminal procedure law, here defense counsel’s agreement to the procedure was deemed ineffective assistance of counsel and a new trial was ordered.

 

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST A CHILD, A CLASS A-II FELONY PUNISHABLE BY A MANDATORY MAXIMUM TERM OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT; PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 195.10[1][B] DEFENDANT CANNOT WAIVE INDICTMENT AND PLEAD TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea to a superior court information (SCI), determined defendant could not waive indictment to an A felony for which a life sentence is available:

CPL 195.10 provides, in relevant part, that a defendant may waive indictment and consent to be prosecuted pursuant to an SCI where “the defendant is not charged with a class A felony punishable by death or life imprisonment” (CPL 195.10 [1] [b] …). Predatory sexual assault against a child is a class A-II felony and “is punishable by an indeterminate sentence with a mandatory maximum term of life imprisonment” (… Penal Law §§ 70.00 [2] [a]; 130.96). Hence, consistent with both CPL 195.10 and prevailing case law, a waiver of indictment “is not available where the defendant is charged with a class A felony” … . Defendant’s waiver of indictment was therefore “expressly prohibited under CPL 195.10 and . . . invalid, rendering the resulting procedure employed to procure defendant’s guilty plea unauthorized” … .  Accordingly, defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated and the SCI dismissed … . People v White, 2024 NY Slip Op 04850, Third Dept 10-3-24

Practice Point: A defendant cannot waive indictment and plead to a superior court information (SCI) when charged with an A-II felony punishable by an indeterminate sentence with a mandatory maximum term of life imprisonment.

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE POLICE WERE AWARE THE VAN THEY STOPPED HAD REPORTEDLY BEEN INVOLVED IN TWO PRIOR INCIDENTS—(1) A ROAD RAGE SHOOTING AND (2) NEARLY RUNNING OVER A TRAFFIC AGENT ABOUT TO ISSUE A PARKING TICKET—PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION SUPPORTING THE LEVEL THREE TRAFFIC STOP, DESPITE THE FACT THE POLICE DID NOT KNOW WHO WAS DRIVING THE VAN DURING THE PRIOR INCIDENTS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice O’Neill, affirming defendant’s conviction, over an extensive dissent, determined the police had reasonable suspicion supporting a level three traffic stop. The registration number of the van defendant was driving had been the subject of police reports for two prior incidents, a road rage incident during which a firearm was discharged, and nearly running a traffic agent over when the agent was about to place a parking ticket on the van. When the van was stopped, the driver was asked to step out of van because of the firearm incident. Defendant refused to get out and picked up a firearm. One of the officers tased the defendant three times and he was arrested:

A forceable stop and detention is authorized “[w]here a police officer entertains a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor” … .

“Reasonable suspicion is the quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious [person] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand. To justify such an intrusion, the police officer must indicate specific and articulable facts which, along with any logical deductions, reasonably prompted that intrusion” … .

Here, before stopping the van, the BOLO [be-on-the-lookout] alert notified Officers Amaral and Stokes of the criminal activity involving the van on April 28th; the officers were also aware of the May 17th incident because they both responded to the traffic enforcement agent’s call for backup. The officers’ knowledge of either incident alone furnished reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at hand … . People v Zubidi, 2024 NY Slip Op 04824, First Dept 10-3-24

Practice Point: Here the fact that defendant’s van had reportedly been involved in a road rage shooting and had nearly run over a traffic agent about to issue a parking ticket provided reasonable suspicion justifying a level three traffic stop, despite the fact that the identity of the driver involved in the prior incidents was not known at the time of the stop.

 

, , ,

THE PORTION OF THE CORRECTION LAW WHICH REQUIRED DEFENDANT BE DESIGNATED A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER,” BASED UPON AN OHIO TELEPHONE-SOLICITATION OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, over a dissent, determined the portion of “Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b), which defines a ‘sexually violent offense’ as a ‘conviction of a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred'” is unconstitutional as applied to defendant. Defendant pled guilty to an Ohio offense which prohibits “soliciting” a person 13 to 15 years old by telephone. Violence is not an element of the Ohio offense:

… [W]e conclude that defendant established that he is an “individual[ ] . . . for whom the [sexually violent] offender designation ‘is unmerited’ ” … because the out-of-state conviction was “not sexual[ly violent] in nature and his conduct provides no basis to predict risk of future sexual[ly violent] harm” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that, as applied to him, the designation of defendant as a sexually violent offender pursuant to the second disjunctive clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b) “unconstitutionally impacts defendant’s liberty interest in a criminal designation that rationally fits his conduct and public safety risk” … . People v Brightman, 2024 NY Slip Op 04654, Fourth Dept 9-27-24

Practice Point: Here the Correction Law required that defendant be designated a “sexually violent offender” based on an Ohio conviction for telephone solicitation of a person between 13 and 15 which did not involve violence. That portion of the Correction Law was deemed unconstitutional as applied to the defendant.

 

,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF HIS GIRLFRIEND’S DAUGHTER; THE GIRLFRIEND ALLEGED SHE WAS UNABLE TO WORK BECAUSE OF THE RESULTING STRESS AND SOUGHT RESTITUTION FOR UNPAID RENT AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES; THE CLAIM FOR LOST WAGES WAS NOT DIRECTLY CAUSED BY DEFENDANT’S OFFENSES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department modified the judgment by eliminating the restitution aspect of the sentence. The ordered restitution was not directly caused by defendant’s offenses. Defendant pled guilty to sexual abuse of his girlfriend’s daughter:

The girlfriend requested restitution for the unpaid balance of rent for the house she had shared with defendant and for a bill for garbage and recycling collection that was not yet due. The People argued that the girlfriend was entitled to restitution for those expenses because, according to the girlfriend’s statements, defendant’s offenses caused the victim emotional and psychological harm and caused the girlfriend stress that resulted in serious health issues and several hospitalizations, all of which rendered her unable to work, thereby ultimately resulting in financial hardship and her inability to pay the claimed household expenses. The court, over defense counsel’s objection that the claimed expenses were not directly caused by defendant’s offenses, imposed the requested restitution. That was error.

“Penal Law § 60.27 (1) addresses the related concepts of restitution and reparation, allowing a court to order a defendant to ‘make restitution of the fruits of [their] offense or reparation for the actual out-of-pocket loss caused thereby’ ” … . Restitution and reparation may be required for expenses that “were not voluntarily incurred, but stem from legal obligations that are directly and causally related to the crime” … . Conversely, the statute “does not impose a duty on the defendant to pay for the costs associated [ ]with . . . expenses [that] are not directly caused by the defendant’s crime” … .

Here, we conclude that the claimed expenses do not constitute “actual out-of-pocket loss caused” by defendant’s offenses (Penal Law § 60.27 [1]) inasmuch as the girlfriend’s unpaid rent and utility bill are costs “not directly caused by . . . defendant’s crime[s]” … . Contrary to the People’s assertion, the girlfriend’s request did not constitute a claim for lost wages directly caused by defendant’s offenses … . People v Figueroa, 2024 NY Slip Op 04691, Fourth Dept 9-27-24

Practice Point: Restitution applies only to expenses or losses “directly caused by defendant’s offenses.” Here defendant pled guilty to sexual abuse of his girlfriend’s daughter. The girlfriend alleged she could not work because of the resulting stress and was unable to pay her rent. That loss was not “directly caused by defendant’s offenses” and, therefore, restitution was not available for the girlfriend’s lost wages.

 

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