You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

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

 

, , ,

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

 

Cumulative Effect of Several “Suggestive” Factors Rendered the Show-Up Identification Inadmissible

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, over a dissent, determined the show-up identification of the defendants was unduly suggestive and should have been suppressed. While none of the “suggestive” factors alone would have been sufficient to invalidate the identification, the cumulative effect of all the factors rendered the identification inadmissible. The defendants were handcuffed and standing together in a well-lit garage, surrounded by police officers.  The driver of the police car carrying the complainant, who had been assaulted an hour before by “three or four black teens,” shown the car’s headlights and “takedown” lights on the defendants. The defendants, none of whom were “teens,” and one of whom was light-skinned, were covered in soot. The complainant looked at the defendants through the police car’s mesh divider and windshield.  In addition to noting there were no “exigent circumstances” mandating the show-up procedure, the court described the factors which cumulatively rendered the show-up inadmissble at trial as follows:

Here, the three suspects were standing side by side after the complainant had described her attack by multiple attackers. Defendants were flanked by as many as eight officers and, apart from the complainant, they were the only civilians present. Defendants were visibly restrained. This was obvious, not only from the fact that their hands were behind their backs, but also from the fact that defendant Santiago, who had visible physical injuries to his face indicative of a recent scuffle, was being physically restrained by one of the officers as the complainant made her identification. Defendants were covered in soot, such that it affected their appearance, particularly as to skin color. Previously, the complainant had described her assailants’ “black” skin color as a prominent identifying feature, along with their ages. As the complainant was driven from the precinct to the location of the showup identification, she was told that she would be looking at people, and that she should tell the officers if she had seen them before. When defendants were shown to the complainant, they were illuminated by the patrol car’s headlights and takedown flood lights, even though the garage lighting itself was good.

We recognize that some of these factors, either alone or even in combination do not necessarily make a showup identification unduly suggestive. A showup identification may be acceptable, even where a defendant is handcuffed and guarded by police officers when shown to the complainant … . Nor is the fact that remarks are made to a complainant before being taken to a lineup itself a basis for a prohibited showup identification … . This is because a person of ordinary intelligence would realize that the police are showing them someone suspected of having committed a crime … . Even shining lights on a suspect is not by itself unduly suggestive … . It is the cumulative effect of what otherwise might be individually permissible that makes this particular showup identification unduly suggestive. The showup was clearly beyond the high water mark set forth by the Court of Appeals… . People v Cruz, 2015 NY Slip Op 04597, 1st Dept 6-2-15

 

,

“Preamble” Read to Defendant Before the Miranda Warnings Neutralized the Effect of the Warnings—Defendant’s Statement Should Have Been Suppressed

The Second Department determined defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted because the “preamble” read to him before he waived his right to remain silent neutralized the effect of the Miranda warnings. “Before the defendant was read his Miranda rights, the detective investigator said to him (1) “if you agree to speak with us, you may, if you wish, explain what you did and what occurred at that date, time, and place,” (2) “[i]f . . . you have an alibi . . . and you want to tell us where you were, we will ask that you please give us as much information as you can, including the names of any people you were with,” and (3) “[i]f you agree to speak to us and your version of the events of that day differs from what we have heard, you may, if you so choose, tell us your story.” Thus, a clear implication was conveyed to the defendant that he ought to speak to the detective investigator and the assistant district attorney present at the interview in order to set forth his version of events so that they could be investigated. As such, the preamble here … rendered the subsequent Miranda warnings inadequate and ineffective in advising the defendant of his rights …”. People v Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 04517, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

,

Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication Should Not Have Been Considered in SORA Risk Assessment—Criteria for an Upward Departure Explained

The Second Department determined defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication should not have been considered in determining the defendant’s risk level. The court explained the proper procedure for considering an upward departure: … “[T]he County Court upwardly departed without following the required three analytical steps of determining, first, whether an aggravating factor exists as a matter of law, second, whether the People have adduced clear and convincing evidence of the facts in support of that aggravating factor, and third, whether, in the court’s discretion, the totality of the circumstances warrant the upward departure to avoid an under-assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism …”. People v Ruland,  2015 NY Slip Op 04464, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

,

Upward Departure Proper In Light of Felony Conviction Not Considered in the Risk Assessment–Criteria for Upward Departure Explained In Some Detail

The Second Department determined County Court properly departed (upward) from the presumptive risk level based upon a felony conviction which pre-dated the sexual offenses considered in the risk assessment. The Second Department explained in some detail the criteria for an upward departure:

A court is permitted to depart from the presumptive risk level if “special circumstances” warrant departure (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]). An upward departure is permitted only if the court concludes “that there exists an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (id. at 4…). In determining whether an upward departure is permissible and, if permissible, appropriate, a SORA court must engage in a multi-step inquiry. First, the court must determine whether the People have articulated, as a matter of law, a legitimate aggravating factor. Next, the court must determine whether the People have established, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the existence of that aggravating factor in the case before it. Upon the People’s satisfaction of these two requirements, an upward departure becomes discretionary. If, upon examining all of circumstances relevant to the offender’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, the court concludes that the presumptive risk level would result in an underassessment of the risk or danger of reoffense, it may upwardly depart … . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 04465, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

, ,

Promissory Note Reflecting a Loan to a Limited Liability Company Was Criminally Usurious As Well As Void Under the General Obligations Law—Provision Purporting to Reduce the Interest Rate to a Non-Usurious Rate If the Original Rate Were Found to be Usurious Did Not Save the Note

The Second Department determined a promissory note imposing an annual interest rate of more than 25% (60% here) was criminally usurious (Penal Law 190.40) and could not be saved by a provision purporting to reduce the interest rate to a non-usurious rate if the original rate were found to be usurious. The court noted that, although a limited liability company (the defendant here) cannot assert the defense of civil usury, a limited liability company can assert the defense of criminal usury.  In addition, the note was void under General Obligations Law 5-511 because the interest rate exceeded 16%. Fred Schutzman Co. v Park Slope Advanced Med., PLLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04447, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

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