You are here: / Criminal Law

Concurrent Inclusory Counts Dismissed Despite Lack of Preservation

The Fourth Department determined the lesser inclusory counts of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree must be dismissed, despite lack of preservation:

… [C]ounts four, five and seven must be dismissed as lesser inclusory counts of count three, vehicular manslaughter in the first degree. Initially, we note that defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for our review is of no moment because preservation is not required … . With respect to the merits, “concurrent counts are inclusory when the offense charged in one is greater than that charged in the other and when the latter is a lesser offense included within the greater” … . Thus, where, as here, “it is impossible to commit a particular crime without concomitantly committing, by the same conduct, []other offense[s] of lesser grade or degree, the latter [are], with respect to the former, . . . lesser included offense[s]” … . Because it is impossible to commit the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree under Penal Law § 125.13 (4), without concomitantly committing the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree under Penal Law § 125.12, or without concomitantly committing the crime of, inter alia, driving while ability impaired by drugs under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4), the latter two crimes are inclusory concurrent counts of the former crime. We therefore modify the judgment by dismissing the three counts of the indictment charging the latter two crimes. People v Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 04954, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

,

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

 

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

 

, ,

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

 

,

Defense Counsel’s Failure to Pursue a Minimal Investigation (i.e., Failure to Access Defendant’s Psychiatric Records and Failure to Have the Defendant Examined by an Independent Psychiatrist) Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—Conviction Reversed

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should have been granted.  Defendant suffered from mental illness and had been hospitalized for psychiatric disorders.  The trial court had granted defense counsel permission to access to defendant’s psychiatric records and had granted authorization for the appointment of an independent psychiatrist to evaluate defendant.  Defense counsel did not seek the psychiatric records, nor the evaluation by the independent psychiatrist.  The Second Department, after an in-depth explanation of the criteria, held that defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel.  The court noted that the ground at issue here, defense counsel’s failure to pursue minimal investigation, required reversal without a showing that the result of the trial would have been different had the investigation been conducted:

A criminal defendant is guaranteed the effective assistance of counsel under both the federal and the state constitutions (see US Const Amend VI; NY Const, art I, § 6). Generally, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution, a defendant must show, first, “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” …, and, second, “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different” … .

Under the New York Constitution, a defendant must show that he was not afforded “meaningful representation” … , which also entails a two-pronged test, “with the first prong identical to its federal counterpart” …, and the second being a “prejudice component [which] focuses on the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case'” … and, thus, is “somewhat more favorable to defendants” … . A reviewing court must examine whether “the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [the] particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation” … .

Under both state and federal law, a defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel includes assistance by an attorney who has conducted a reasonable investigation into the relevant facts and law to determine whether matters of defense can be developed … .

Generally, in order to make out a claim of ineffective assistance under the New York Constitution, a defendant is required to make some showing of prejudice, albeit not necessarily the “but for” prejudice required under federal law … . However, prejudice is not an “indispensable element in assessing meaningful representation” … . The Court of Appeals has indicated that counsel’s failure to pursue the minimal investigation appropriate with respect to an issue central to the defense itself “seriously compromises [the] defendant’s right to a fair trial,” regardless of whether the information would have altered the uninformed strategy counsel employed, or otherwise helped the defense … .

Here, the People’s case hinged almost entirely on their ability to prove the defendant’s state of mind, and trial counsel undisputedly failed to take the minimal steps of obtaining the defendant’s psychiatric records and having him evaluated by an expert, which were necessary to make an informed decision as to whether or not to present a psychiatric defense. Under the circumstances of this case, the People’s argument that, even with the benefit of the evidence trial counsel should have obtained, there is no reasonable chance that a mental disease or defect or EED defense would have been successful, or that the outcome of the trial would otherwise have been different, misconstrues the central issue in this case. The issue is not whether trial counsel’s choice to have certain documents excluded from the record constitutes a legitimate trial strategy, but whether the failure to secure and review crucial documents, that would have undeniably provided valuable information to assist counsel in developing a strategy during the pretrial investigation phase of a criminal case, constitutes meaningful representation as a matter of law … . Trial counsel’s “total failure” in this regard deprived the defendant of meaningful representation … . People v Graham,2015 NY Slip Op 04862, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

, ,

Revocation of Driver’s License for Refusal of the Chemical Test Reversed—No “Reasonable Suspicion” to Justify Vehicle Stop

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

 

,

Allowing a Detective Who Was Involved in the Investigation of Defendant’s Case to Testify as an “Expert” Was Error (Harmless Here However)–Although the Detective Was Ostensibly to Testify as an Expert Who Could “Translate” Code Words Used in Recorded Conversations, His Testimony Extended into Many Areas Which Did Not Involve Code Words, Thereby Imbuing HIs Entire Testimony with an Aura of Expertise—Such Improper “Expert” Testimony Usurps the Jury’s Role

Although the error was deemed harmless here, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined it was error to allow a detective, who was involved in the underlying murder investigation, to testify as an “expert.” The detective was asked to explain the meaning of so-called “code words” used in recorded conversations admitted into evidence. But it was clear that the trial court allowed the detective to testify as an “expert” on matters that had nothing to do with translating code words.  As a result, the detective’s testimony was imbued with an aura of expertise which could have improperly added weight to his testimony in the eyes of the jury.  Because this issue has not been addressed by New York courts, the Court of Appeals turned to two Second Circuit cases which held the improper “expert” testimony, on topics not beyond the “ken of the jurors,” usurped the jury’s role:

We have, for example, permitted expert testimony by a police sergeant respecting the way in which street-level drug sales are transacted to help a jury understand why the failure to recover drugs or marked buy-money from an individual apprehended in a buy-and-bust operation is not necessarily indicative of the accused’s misidentification (People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500 [2002]). It is instructive to note, however, that the testimony of the sergeant in Brown was carefully limited by the trial court to a discrete issue beyond the ken of ordinary jurors, and that the sergeant was not himself involved in the underlying investigation and gave no testimony as to what had actually occurred during the buy-and-bust there involved. The situation is very different where a police officer, qualified as an expert, has participated in the investigation of the matter being tried and, with the mantel of an expert steeped in the particulars of the case, gives seemingly authoritative testimony directly instructive of what facts the jury should find. Our cases have not dealt with this problematic scenario, but those of the Second Circuit, most notably United States v Mejia (545 F3d 179 [2d Cir 2008]) and United States v Dukagjini (326 F3d 45 [2d Cir 2002]), have.

In both of those cases, law enforcement officers involved in the investigations upon which the defendants’ prosecutions were founded were duly qualified as experts but permitted to testify as apparent experts beyond their expertise and upon matters well within the grasp of lay jurors. In exploring the full reach of the permission they had been afforded, they became summation witnesses, instructing the jury comprehensively and with an aura of expertise, as to how the particular factual issues presented in each case should be resolved. This, said the Mejia court, amounted to a “usurpation of the jury’s role” (545 F3d at 191), and was objectionable as well, in both Mejia and Dukagjini, for operating to inject hearsay into the evidentiary mix and to abridge the defendants’ constitutional right to confront the witnesses against them; both case agent witnesses, as putative experts, had premised their testimony largely on inadmissible out-of-court statements, even when that testimony ceased to be expert and went only towards proving particular facts. People v Inoa, 2015 NY Slip Op 04790, CtApp 6-10-15

 

, , ,

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

 

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