You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

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  As a result petitioner’s license was revoked by an administrative law judge.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

 

,

Although the Right to Appeal Could Have Been Defined More Fully, Defendant’s Waiver of Appeal In Response to a Colloquy Conducted by the Prosecutor Deemed Sufficient

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was valid, noting the nature of the right to appeal could have been defined more fully.  “Regarding the waiver of the right to appeal, the following exchange … took place between the prosecutor and defendant: ‘Q Do you understand that as a condition of this plea you are waiving the right to appeal your conviction and sentence to the Appellate Division [2nd] Department? A Yes. Q Have you discussed this waiver of the right to appeal with your attorney? A Yes. Q In consideration of this negotiated plea[,] do you now voluntarily waive your right to appeal your conviction and sentence under this indictment? A Yes.’ ” The Court of Appeals noted “County Court adequately described the right to appeal without lumping it into the panoply of rights normally forfeited upon a guilty plea.” [The dissent pointed out that the responsibility for the colloquy re: the waiver of appeal was delegated to the prosecutor here:]

….[W]e conclude that the record before us sufficiently demonstrates that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal. There is no meaningful distinction between the plea colloquy here and the colloquy upheld in Nicholson, in which defendant acknowledged his understanding that he was “giving up [his] right to appeal, that is, to take to a higher court than this one any of the legal issues connected with this case” (Nicholson, 6 NY3d at 254). As in Nicholson, the plea colloquy here was sufficient because County Court adequately described the right to appeal without lumping it into the panoply of rights normally forfeited upon a guilty plea. In fact, the People went even further in this case and obtained defendant’s confirmation that he had discussed the waiver of the right to appeal with his attorney and that he was waiving such right in consideration of his negotiated plea, as well as counsel’s confirmation that all motions pending or decided were being withdrawn. Thus, while the better practice would have been to define the nature of the right to appeal more fully — as the court did in Nicholson — the Appellate Division correctly determined that no further elaboration was necessary on the phrase “right to appeal your conviction and sentence to the Appellate Division [2nd] Department” in view of the whole colloquy, particularly given this defendant’s background, including his extensive experience with the criminal justice system and multiple prior guilty pleas that resulted in terms of imprisonment. People v Sanders, 2015 NY Slip Op 04755, CtApp 6-9-15

 

,

Hearsay Statement Did Not Meet the “Reliability” Requirement for Admissibility as a Statement Against Penal Interest

The First Department determined defendant’s friend’s alleged hearsay statement that he, not defendant, assaulted the victim was properly precluded. The statement did not meet the “reliability” requirement for admissibility as a statement against penal interest (an exception to the hearsay rule):

This hearsay evidence did not satisfy the reliability requirement for admissibility under the exception for declarations against penal interest …, or under a due process theory … . Defendant’s friend told defense counsel that he neither committed the assault nor made the alleged statements, the statements were contradicted by trial witnesses who testified that the friend was nearby but did not participate in the assault, the statements were allegedly made to persons closely aligned with defendant, and recorded phone calls raised suspicion that defendant had made efforts to manufacture exculpatory evidence. All these factors undermined any reliability this hearsay evidence may have had … . People v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 04781, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

,

The Acts of Applying for a Fake Non-Driver ID Card and Possessing the Fake Non-Driver ID Card Upon Arrest (Four-Months After Submitting the Application) Did Not Constitute a Single Criminal Venture—the Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy Did Not Preclude the Second Charge

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined defendant was not entitled to the dismissal of charges on double jeopardy grounds.  Defendant had used his son’s identification information to procure a non-driver ID card in Suffolk County.  Several months later defendant was stopped by police in Westchester County, presented the fake non-driver ID card, and was subsequently charged with possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. Defendant pled guilty to possession of a forged instrument third degree. When defendant’s son returned to New York State (after a four-year absence) and applied for a driver’s license in Westchester County, authorities became aware of defendant’s submission (in Westchester County) of a fake application (MV-44 form) for the non-driver ID. Defendant was then charged in Westchester County with possession of a forged instrument (the ID application form) as well as forgery.  The Court of Appeals held that the two offenses were not “integrated, interdependent acts as seen in conspiracy cases or complex frauds…”. Therefore, unlike individual acts within such conspiracies or complex frauds, the two acts did not constitute a “single criminal venture.” The court noted: “A closer case might be presented had defendant applied for a driver’s license in Suffolk County with his son’s papers and showed the temporary driver’s license later that same day when his car was stopped by police. In such circumstances, the timing and criminal purpose of the two acts would be more interrelated than the circumstances presented here:”

Under CPL 40.20, a subsequent prosecution for offenses involving the “same criminal . . . transaction,” as defined by CPL 40.10 (2), violates the statutory bar against double jeopardy unless an exception applies.

“‘Criminal transaction’ means conduct which establishes at least one offense, and which is comprised of two or more or a group of acts either (a) so closely related and connected in point of time and circumstance of commission as to constitute a single criminal incident, or (b) so closely related in criminal purpose or objective as to constitute elements or integral parts of a single criminal venture” (CPL 40.10 [2]). * * *

Part (b) of the CPL 410.10 definition “tends to be more applicable to crimes that involve planned, ongoing organized criminal activity, such as conspiracies, complex frauds or larcenies, or narcotics rings” (7 NY Prac., New York Pretrial Criminal Procedure § 2:6 [2d ed.]). This Court has recognized statutory violations of double jeopardy protections in drug trafficking cases where the “embracive nature of the crime of conspiracy” presents unique circumstances … .

Here, under the test presented by CPL 40.10 (2) (a), the offense of submitting a forged MV-44 form and the offense of presenting a forged non-driver ID to the police were many months apart and … involved different forged instruments — the non-driver’s license and the MV-44 application form — making them different criminal transactions. The Suffolk County charge was based on defendant’s completion and filing of the application form. The offense was complete once defendant submitted the forged application to the DMV in June 2009. The Westchester offense occurred four months later and was based on defendant’s presentation of the forged non-driver’s license to the officer. With the non-driver ID card in hand, defendant could give the appearance of a clean record, which would enable him to evade his criminal history and obtain a loan or employment under a false identity. Applying the alternative test defined by CPL 40.10 (2) (b), this case does not involve the integrated, interdependent acts as seen in conspiracy cases or complex frauds, and as such does not constitute a “single criminal venture” … . People v Lynch, 2015 NY Slip Op 04754, CtApp 6-9-15

 

, , ,

Before a Sex Offender Can Be Allowed to Represent Himself in a Mental Hygiene Law Section 10 Proceeding (to Determine Whether the Offender Should Be Civilly Confined), the Court Must Conduct the Same “Searching Inquiry” Required in Criminal and Certain Family Court Proceedings to Determine Whether the Offender Understands the Risks of Going Forward Without Counsel

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal the Second Department determined that the state had proven the offender was a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement.  In so finding, the Second Department went through in detail the proof required to justify civil commitment of a sex offender.  That aspect of the opinion is not addressed here.  The offender represented himself in the civil commitment proceeding.  The Second Department determined that, just as in a criminal trial, before allowing an offender to proceed pro se, the court is required to engage in a “searching inquiry” to make sure the offender understands the consequences of representing himself.  Because no searching inquiry was done here, the Second Department determined the offender’s waiver of his right to counsel was ineffective:

…[A] respondent in a SOMTA (Sex Offender Management and Training Act [Mental Hygiene Law Section 10]) proceeding arguably faces an even more severe threat to his or her liberty than that faced by a criminal defendant. When successfully litigated by the State, such a proceeding can result in civil confinement, after a respondent is released from prison, which is involuntary and indefinite (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09), and can last the remainder of a respondent’s life. Therefore, we hold that a respondent in a SOMTA proceeding can effectively waive his or her statutory right to counsel only after the court conducts a searching inquiry to ensure that the waiver is unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent. Applying these principles here, we find that the Supreme Court failed to secure an effective waiver of the appellant’s right to counsel.* * *

…[T]he appellant could not make an intelligent and voluntary choice to waive the assistance of counsel without being apprised, in any manner, of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation … . Indeed, the fact that the appellant was alleged to be suffering from a mental abnormality requiring confinement to a mental institution made it all the more imperative that the Supreme Court adequately warn him of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se, and impress upon him the disadvantages of going to trial without the assistance of counsel. Notwithstanding the concerns voiced by the Assistant Attorney General, the Supreme Court erroneously insisted that it had fulfilled its obligations by merely placing on the record that the appellant did not want an attorney, that he understood he would represent himself, and that he could read and write.  Matter of State of New York v Raul L, 2014 NY Slip Op 04019, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

, , ,

New Trial Required Because State’s Experts Testified Based On Hearsay Not Demonstrated to Have Been Reliable

The Second Department determined a new civil commitment trial was required because the experts based their testimony in part upon hearsay which had not been demonstrated to be reliable:

As recently held by the Court of Appeals in Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y. (22 NY3d 95, 109), “[d];ue process requires any hearsay basis evidence to meet minimum requirements of reliability and relevance before it can be admitted at an article 10 proceeding. In article 10 trials, hearsay basis evidence is admissible if it satisfies two criteria. First, the proponent must demonstrate through evidence that the hearsay is reliable. Second, the court must determine that the probative value in helping the jury evaluate the [expert’s]; opinion substantially outweighs [its]; prejudicial effect’ (cf. Fed Rules Evid rule 703). These reliability and substantial relevance requirements provide a necessary counterweight to the deference juries may accord hearsay evidence simply because an expert has propounded it.”… .

Here, both of the State’s experts testified to the appellant’s convictions, as well as unproven acts, which formed the basis of their opinion that the appellant suffered from a mental abnormality. The experts provided considerable hearsay testimony concerning these unproven acts, relying, inter alia, upon hearsay evidence within probation reports and other documents, and not personal knowledge. The State failed to demonstrate through other evidence that the aforementioned hearsay testimony was reliable … . As the State failed to establish that the hearsay was reliable, the Court need not determine whether the probative value of such hearsay outweighed its prejudicial effect… . Matter of State of New York v Walter R, 2014 NY Slip Op 04020, 2nd Dept 6=4=14

 

, , ,

Failure to Suppress Statement Was Not Harmless Error Because the Statement Undermined the Justification Defense—Proof Burdens for “Harmless Error” and the Justification Defense Explained

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division properly found that the “unwarned” statement made by 11-year-old Delroy should have been suppressed. The statement was made in Delroy’s apartment when a police officer asked him “what happened?”. Under the circumstances, “a reasonable 11 year old would not have felt free to leave” at the time the question was asked.  Therefore the question amounted to “custodial interrogation” in the absence of the Miranda warnings. The Court of Appeals, disagreeing with the Appellate Division, ruled the error was not harmless because the statement undermined Delroy’s defense of justification. There was no question Delroy stabbed the 12-year-old complainant.  But questions were raised by the trial testimony whether the stabbing was in self-defense. With respect to proof burdens for “harmless error” and the justification defense, the Court of Appeals explained:

A trial court’s error involving a constitutionally protected right is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt only if “there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction” … . “The People must show that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt [and] [i]n deciding whether the People have met this burden, we consider both the overall strength of the case against defendant and the importance to that case of the improperly admitted evidence” … .

The record shows that while there was no doubt that Delroy had stabbed the complainant, there was evidence supporting Delroy’s justification defense. “The defense of justification . . . permits one to use deadly physical force on another when one reasonably believes that deadly physical force is being used or imminently will be used by such other person” … . The People bear the burden of disproving the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt … . * * *

…[T]he People have not demonstrated that there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongly admitted evidence might have contributed to the guilty finding. Matter of Delroy S., 2015 NY Slip Op 04676, CtApp 6-4-15

 

,

Defendant Would Not Admit to the Commission of Certain Elements of the Offense to Which He Pled Guilty—Vacation of Plea as Involuntary Was Required, Despite Lack of Preservation and a Waiver of Appeal

The Third Department determined defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated, despite a failure to preserve the error and a waiver of appeal. During the plea allocution, defendant denied elements of the offense to which he was pleading guilty (strangulation in the second degree). Defendant denied that the victim experienced a loss of consciousness or any injury, and denied he had the intent to impede the breathing of the victim.  The guilty plea, therefore, was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary (constituting an exception to the “preservation of error” requirement):

Although defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his uncontested waiver of the right to appeal …, it is unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion … . Upon reviewing the record, however, we are persuaded that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement has been triggered here, as defendant made numerous statements during the course of the plea colloquy that negated essential elements of the crime, thereby calling into question the voluntariness of his plea … . * * *

Simply put, defendant’s responses to the questions posed during the plea colloquy negated more than one element of the charged crime, thereby casting doubt upon his guilt. Inasmuch as further inquiry by County Court neither resolved that doubt nor otherwise established that the resulting plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary … , it should not have been accepted by the court and must now be vacated … . People v Mcmillan, 2015 NY Slip Op 04680, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

,

Inadequate Waiver of the Right to Appeal Required Vacation of Guilty Plea, Despite Lack of Preservation of the Error

The Third Department determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid and his guilty plea must therefore be vacated (in the interest of justice), despite the failure to preserve the error:

Defendant argues that his plea was invalid because County Court failed to advise him of the rights that he would be waiving by pleading guilty, including “the privilege against self-incrimination and the rights to a jury trial and to be confronted by witnesses” … . This argument is unpreserved given defendant’s failure to advance it in his motion to withdraw his plea … . While it is somewhat unclear as to the precise characterization of this type of error … , it is undoubtedly one serious enough to warrant reversal in the interest of justice … . …

… [A] trial court is neither required “to specifically enumerate all the rights to which the defendant was entitled [or] to elicit . . . detailed waivers before accepting [a] guilty plea” …, nor engage in “a uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants” … . There must, however, “be ‘an affirmative showing on the record’ that the defendant waived his [or her] constitutional rights” … . County Court made no effort to explain the rights that defendant was giving up by pleading guilty, making nothing more than a passing reference to them when asking if defendant had “any questions.” County Court further failed to establish that “defendant consulted with his attorney about the constitutional consequences of a guilty plea,” instead making a vague inquiry into whether defendant had spoken to defense counsel regarding “the plea bargain” and “the case”… . People v Klinger, 2015 NY Slip Op 04682, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

, , ,

To Succeed In a Legal Malpractice Action Stemming from Representation in a Criminal Matter, the Plaintiff Must Have a Colorable Claim of Actual Innocence—Elements of Legal Malpractice in this Context Explained

The Second Department determined defendant-attorney’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice complaint should have been granted.  Plaintiff, when represented by defendant-attorney, was convicted of sex offenses. The conviction was overturned on “ineffective assistance of counsel” grounds.  Plaintiff was acquitted upon retrial. In the legal malpractice action, the plaintiff was unable to prove the element of causation.  Defendant-attorney demonstrated plaintiff’s conviction was not due solely to defendant-attorney’s conduct, but was based in part on plaintiff’s “guilt,” in that her children provided graphic testimony alleging sexual abuse. To succeed in a legal malpractice action stemming from a criminal matter, the plaintiff must at least have a colorable claim of actual innocence.  In addition, the nonpecuniary damages sought by the plaintiff (psychological injury due to her incarceration) are not recoverable in a legal malpractice action.  The Second Department explained the elements of legal malpractice in this context (stemming from representation in a criminal case):

To recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages … . Even where a plaintiff establishes that his or her attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by members of the legal profession, the plaintiff must still demonstrate causation … . “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence” … . In the civil context, this Court has held that a plaintiff in a legal malpractice action “need prove only that the defendant-attorney’s negligence was a proximate cause of damages” … . However, in a legal malpractice action such as this one, arising from representation in a criminal matter, the “plaintiff must have at least a colorable claim of actual innocence” …, and the plaintiff ultimately bears the unique burden to plead and prove that his or her “conviction was due to the attorney’s actions alone and not due to some consequence of his [or her] guilt” … . ” To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant in a legal malpractice action must present evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of these essential elements'” … . Dawson v Schoenberg, 2015 NY Slip Op 04603, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

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