You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Sealed Records Relating to Vacated Convictions Were Sufficiently Reliable to Allow Expert Testimony to Be Based Upon Them In a Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 Trial (to Determine Whether a Sex Offender Should Be Committed to a Mental Health Facility)/However, a Presentence Report Mentioning Uncharged Offenses Was Not Reliable Enough to Be Used as a Basis for Expert Opinion

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, determined that most of the hearsay relied upon by experts in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 trial (to determine whether a sex offender should be committed to a mental health facility) was reliable enough to be admissible. The records deemed admissible related to sex offense convictions which were vacated.  The records deemed inadmissible related to allegations which were never prosecuted and which were not supported by any reliable documents (mentioned only in a presentence report).  The error in admitting the unreliable hearsay was deemed harmless:

The records Supreme Court unsealed here — indictments, presentence reports, police reports, and victim's statements, among other documents in the possession of official entities are the types of records the Legislature contemplated the State would have access to in an article 10 proceeding (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [c]). Respondent pleaded guilty in satisfaction of the 1968 indictments charging him with committing a string of rapes and robberies. Although his conviction was later vacated on mental incompetency grounds, the facts remains that respondent was charged and indicted for those crimes; that is, he was alleged to have committed them. Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (c), by authorizing disclosure of records relating to the “alleged commission of a sex offense,” necessarily contemplates the release of records, such as these, which document sex offenses that did not result in valid adjudications of guilt. The 1968 records also qualify for disclosure under the statute's catch-all provision because they contain “information relevant to a determination” of whether respondent requires civil management under article 10 (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [c]).

Respondent further argues that CPL 160.60 should have barred disclosure of the sealed records. That statute provides, in pertinent part, that once a criminal action or proceeding has terminated in favor of the accused, “the arrest and prosecution shall be deemed a nullity,” and the information about that arrest or prosecution may not be disclosed “[e]xcept where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of a superior court” (CPL 160.60 [emphasis added]). Respondent essentially claims that, because the 1968 charges were terminated in his favor and “deemed a nullity,” he can no longer be “alleged” to have committed the underlying crimes and the records therefore do not qualify for disclosure under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (c).

We disagree. CPL 160.60 states by its plain terms that its provisions may be superseded by another statute, such as Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (c), that permits disclosure of the sealed information. Although an arrest or prosecution terminated in a defendant's favor must generally be “deemed a nullity” under CPL 160.60, we decline to interpret that statute as barring the disclosure of records that, for the purposes of article 10, relate to a respondent's alleged commission of a sex offense. Matter of State of New York v John S, 2014 NY Slip Op 03292, Ct App 5-8-14

Similar issues and result in another opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam.  Presentence report mentioning an uncharged offense was not reliable enough to be used as a basis for expert opinion. Error deemed harmless. Matter of State of New York v Charada T, 2014 NY Slip Op 03293, CtApp 5-8-14

 

,

Defendant Entitled to Suppression Hearing Where People Provided No Information About How Defendant Came to the Attention of Law Enforcement Personnel

The First Department determined the defendant’s motion papers, although conclusory, were sufficient to warrant a hearing on whether defendant’s statements should be suppressed.  The People had provided no information about how the defendant came to the attention of law enforcement:

Although the People provided defendant with extensive information about the facts of the crime and the proof to be offered at trial, they provided no information whatsoever, at any stage of the proceedings, about how defendant came to be a suspect, and the basis for her arrest, made hours after the crime at a different location. The People never explained, even by implication, whether defendant met a description, was named by a witness familiar with her, or was connected to the crime in some other way. While the People disclosed defendant’s detailed confession, it did not shed any light on how she came to be arrested … .

Accordingly, given defendant’s complete lack of relevant information, that portion of her motion papers alleging a “lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the unreliability of the information provided to the police and/or the insufficiency of the description,” while conclusory, was sufficient to state a basis for suppression and raise a factual issue requiring a hearing … . People v Wynn, 2014 NY Slip Op 03352, 1st Dept 5-8-14

 

,

Judge’s Failure to Apply the “Prejudice versus Probative” Balancing Test to Evidence of Uncharged Bad Acts and Crimes, Combined with the Judge’s Failure to Give the Jury Limiting Instructions About How Such Evidence is to Be Considered by Them, Required Reversal of Defendant’s Conviction

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the judge never ruled on the admissibility of uncharged prior bad acts and crimes by applying the “prejudicial effect versus probative value” Molineux test, and the judge never gave limiting instructions to the jury about the limited applicability of such evidence.  The charged offense was assault by administering alcohol to the victim (defendant’s wife) without her consent.  The prior bad acts and crimes which were entered into evidence included nonconsensual sex, withholding medication and domestic violence:

To be sure, “[p]rior bad acts in domestic violence situations are more likely to be considered relevant and probative evidence because the aggression and bad acts are focused on one particular person, demonstrating the defendant’s intent, motive, identity and absence of mistake” … and, further, may be “relevant to provide background information concerning the context and history of [the] defendant’s relationship with the victim” … . That said, even assuming that all of the uncharged crimes/prior bad acts at issue here, which, as noted previously, included allegations of nonconsensual sex, domestic violence, bullying and the withholding of certain medications from the victim, fell within one or more of the recognized Molineux exceptions … and indeed constituted relevant and probative evidence, the record fails to reflect that County Court balanced the probative value of such evidence against its prejudicial effect. More to the point, even further assuming that our review of the record disclosed evidence of County Court’s implicit finding in this regard …, the record nonetheless reveals that, despite an appropriate request by defense counsel during the course of the charge conference, no appropriate limiting instructions were provided to the jury … . The absence of such instructions clearly impacted the jury’s deliberations — as evidenced by the jury’s inquiry as to whether the coercion charge “encompass[ed] just the use of alcohol or . . . extend[ed] to unwilling sex. People v Elmy, 2014 NY Slip Op 03300, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

Cell Phone In Possession of Inmate Met the Definition of “Dangerous Contraband” in the Context of a “Promoting Prison Contraband” Charge

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined that a cell phone constituted “dangerous contraband” within the meaning of “promoting prison contraband in the first degree.”  The testimony of the supervising superintendent about the protections put in place concerning the recording and restrictions on inmate phone calls were sufficient to demonstrate the cell phone met the definition of “dangerous contraband:”

In this regard, the Court of Appeals has instructed that “the test for determining whether an item is dangerous contraband is whether its particular characteristics are such that there is a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility’s institutional safety or security” … . Notably, “the distinction between contraband and dangerous contraband” does not turn upon “whether an item is legal or illegal outside of prison . . . [as] [i]t is obvious that an item, such as a razor, may be perfectly legal outside prison and yet constitute dangerous contraband when introduced into that unpredictable environment” … . Similarly, as our case law makes clear, the item in question need not be inherently dangerous in order to qualify as dangerous contraband. Indeed, although weapons are perhaps the most commonly recognized source of dangerous contraband in a prison setting … , courts have — applying the Finley test — reached the very same conclusion with respect to other items made, obtained or possessed by prison inmates, including illegal quantities of drugs …, a disposable Bic lighter …  and hand-drawn maps or knotted links of wire that could be used to facilitate an escape …. Although the majority in Finley did not expressly address this issue, Judge Pigott opined in his concurrence/dissent that, “[i]f the contraband at issue is not inherently dangerous . . . , the People must present specific, competent proof from which the trier of fact may infer that use of the contraband could potentially create a dangerous situation inside the facility” … . As a cell phone admittedly is not an inherently dangerous item, the question is whether the People adduced sufficient proof to establish the cell phone’s potential to be used in such a pernicious manner as to elevate it to the level of dangerous contraband. People v Green, 2014 NY Slip Op 03303, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

Court’s Erroneous Ruling that Defendant Did Not Have Standing to Contest a Search Was Followed by Defendant’s Entering a Guilty Plea—Because Defendant May Not Have Pled Guilty Had the Suppression Motion Been Held and Suppression Granted, the Matter Was Remitted for a Suppression Hearing (After Defendant Had Completed His Sentence)

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court erroneously ruled defendant did not have standing to contest a search.  After that ruling the defendant pled guilty and has since completed his sentence. Because the suppression hearing should have been held, and because the defendant may not have pled guilty had suppression been granted, the matter was remitted for a suppression hearing.  People v Kendrick, 2015 NY Slip Op 03979, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

Persons Entering the Hall of Justice, In Which Signs Are Posted Warning that Those Entering the Premises Are Subject to Being Searched, Impliedly Consent to a Full Search, Including the Opening of Objects Found in the Search

The Fourth Department determined the defendant impliedly consented to a search of his person after entering the Hall of Justice.  Signs in the Hall of Justice warned that those who enter the building were subject to search.  The defendant’s argument that consent extended to no more than a frisk was rejected. The court found the defendant consented to a full search of his person and the opening of a foil packet found on his person:

Here, defendant was warned before walking through the magnetometers that he could be subject not just to a pat frisk, but to a search. Given a reasonable person’s knowledge of the increased security measures in government buildings in the past decade and the notifications posted for entrants into the Hall of Justice, we conclude that a reasonable person would have understood that the impending search could involve more than a pat frisk if the initial magnetometer scans indicated the presence of metal on his or her person … . We therefore further conclude that the deputies’ search of defendant’s person did not exceed the scope of defendant’s implied consent.

Defendant’s contention that the opening of the foil package, once it was removed from his person, was a separate, improper search incident to an arrest is unpreserved for our review because defendant failed to raise that contention in his omnibus motion or before the suppression court … . In any event, that contention has no merit. As defendant correctly concedes, he was not under arrest when he was taken to the adjacent room. Moreover, inasmuch as defendant impliedly consented to a search of his person and belongings before entering the Hall of Justice, and did not revoke said consent before the deputies opened the foil package, we conclude that the deputies’ opening of the package to check if it contained a small weapon, such as a razor blade, was not improper … . People v White, 2015 NY Slip Op 03963, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

,

Incorrect Information About Sentencing Provided to the Defendant by the Court and Counsel Warranted Vacating the Plea In the Absence of Preservation

The Fourth Department concluded that wrong information provided to the defendant about sentencing required vacation of the plea, in the absence of preservation by a motion to withdraw the plea.  The defendant was wrongly told by the court and counsel that his sentences on the instant offense and an unrelated offense would necessarily run consecutively. Because there was no way to expect defendant to know the information was incorrect, the error need not be preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea.  Because the plea was based upon complete confusion by all concerned, the plea was vacated:

We agree with defendant, however, that his plea should be vacated on the ground that it was not voluntarily, knowingly or intelligently entered based on the mistaken understanding of the legally required sentence shared by County Court and counsel. Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review …, we conclude that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement applies … . Here, it is clear from the face of the record that the prosecutor incorrectly stated that the sentence on the instant conviction must run consecutively to the sentence imposed on an unrelated conviction, when in fact that was not the case because the instant offense occurred prior to the unrelated conviction (see generally Penal Law § 70.25). It is equally clear that this error was not corrected by defense counsel or the trial court. Thus, preservation was not required “[i]nasmuch as defendant—due to the inaccurate advice of his counsel and the trial court—did not know during the plea . . . proceedings” that consecutive sentences were not required by law … . ” [D]efendant [could] hardly be expected to move to withdraw his plea on a ground of which he ha[d] no knowledge’ ” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable, we would nevertheless exercise our power to address defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

On the merits, we conclude that defendant’s plea should be vacated because “[i]t is impossible to have confidence, on a record like this, that defendant had a clear understanding of what he was doing when he entered his plea,” based on the prosecutor’s erroneous statement that [*2]consecutive sentences were required and the failure of the court or defense counsel to correct that error. We “cannot countenance a conviction that seems to be based on complete confusion by all concerned” … . People v Brooks, 2015 NY Slip Op 03969, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

23-Week-old Child Who Was Born Alive and Lived for 2 1/2 Hours After Removal from Life-Support Was a “Person” Within the Meaning of the Manslaughter Statute

The Fourth Department determined the 23-week-old child delivered by cesarean section was a “person” within the meaning of the manslaughter statute.  The child’s mother was severely injured in a head-on collision with defendant’s vehicle and the child was delivered to save the mother’s life. The child was taken off life-support because of the high risk of cognitive and neurological deficits and died 21/2 hours later. The court, in essence, determined the child was a “person” because she was born alive.

The Penal Law provides that a defendant “is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when . . . [he or she] recklessly causes the death of another person” (§ 125.15 [1]). Furthermore, ” [p]erson,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive” (§ 125.05 [1]), and the Penal Law defines homicide as “conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks” (§ 125.00).

Defendant first contends that the evidence is not legally sufficient because, pursuant to the above statutory scheme, a child who is less than 24 weeks of gestational age is not a person. That contention is without merit. Penal Law § 125.00 uses the disjunctive “or” in defining who may be the victim of a homicide, and it is a well-settled rule of statutory interpretation that “[u]se of the conjunction or’ in a statute usually indicates that the language is to be construed in an alternative sense”… . Therefore, a victim who is born alive may be a person for the purposes of a homicide pursuant to section 125.00, regardless of whether he or she is less than 24 weeks of gestational age. People v Hardy, 2015 NY Slip Op 03961, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

, ,

Ordinance Prohibiting “Unnecessary Noise” Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague

The defendant was stopped by the police for a violation of a city ordinance prohibiting “unnecessary noise” (a loud car stereo).  The defendant argued that the stop, which resulted in drug charges, was not justified by probable cause because the “unnecessary noise” ordinance is “unconstitutionally vague.” The Fourth Department determined the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague because it is tailored to the context of what can be heard more than 50 feet from a vehicle on a public highway and is sufficiently definite to put defendant on notice his conduct was forbidden:

Municipal ordinances “enjoy an exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality’ ” …, and such legislative enactments “are to be construed so as to avoid constitutional issues if such a construction is fairly possible”… . “The void-for-vagueness doctrine embodies a rough idea of fairness’ ” …, and “an impermissibly vague ordinance is a violation of the due process of law” … . In addressing such a challenge, courts first “must determine whether the statute in question is sufficiently definite to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his [or her] contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute” … . “Second, the court must determine whether the enactment provides officials with clear standards for enforcement”

* * * … [T]he City Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague because the section under which defendant was convicted was tailored to a specific context—the creation of “unnecessary noise” beyond 50 feet of a motor vehicle on a public highway (City Ordinance § 40-16 [b]). In our view, “[w]hat is usual noise in the operation of a car [radio or other sound production device] has become common knowledge . . . and any ordinary motorist should have no difficulty in ascertaining” whether the noise in question violates the applicable standard … . Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the ordinance in question was “sufficiently definite” to put defendant on notice that his conduct was forbidden, and that it provided the police “with clear standards for enforcement” … . People v Stephens, 2015 NY Slip Op 03991, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

Police Officer’s Convictions for “Criminal Diversion” (Obtaining Another’s Prescription Medication), and “Official Misconduct” Not Supported by Legally Sufficient Evidence

The Third Department reversed defendant’s convictions for criminal diversion and official misconduct because the offenses were not supported by legally sufficient evidence.  The defendant, a police officer, was accused of obtaining someone’s prescription drugs in exchange for something of pecuniary value (criminal diversion).  She was also accused of flashing her badge to a pharmacist and asking the pharmacist to hurry up with a prescription drug (official misconduct).  The Third Department determined the “criminal diversion” charge was not supported by evidence the drug involved (a muscle relaxant) was a “prescription medication.”  And, in the absence of evidence the defendant knew that flashing her badge constituted an unauthorized exercise of her official functions, there was not sufficient evidence to support the “official misconduct” charge. People v Barnes, 2014 NY Slip Op 03310, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

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