You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Medical Examiner’s Testimony Did Not Rule Out the Possibility that Someone Other than the Defendant Contributed DNA to a Mixture from At Least Three Persons—Conviction Reversed as Against the Weight of the Evidence

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon was against the weight of the evidence. The medical examiner testified there was a mixture of DNA from at least three persons found on the weapon and defendant “could” have been a contributor to that mixture. “In other words, the medical examiner could not rule out the reasonable possibility that another unrelated individual could match the DNA profile.”  The court explained its role in a “weight of the evidence,” as opposed to a “legal insufficiency,” analysis:

On this appeal, defendant does not ask us to reverse his convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees on the ground that the trial evidence was legally insufficient to support such convictions. Instead, defendant argues that his convictions should be reversed because the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. An appellate court weighing the evidence “must, like the trier of fact below, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony'” … . “If based on all the credible evidence a different finding would not have been unreasonable” and if the “trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, the appellate court may set aside the verdict” … . When an appellate court performs weight of the evidence review, it sits, in effect, as a “thirteenth juror” … .

We agree with defendant that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence … . The evidence failed to connect defendant with a pistol that had been discarded during a shooting incident. People v Graham, 2015 NY Slip Op 04401, 1st Dept 5-26-15

 

, ,

Insanity Acquittee Not Entitled to Blanket Sealing of Record of a Recommitment Proceeding But Is Entitled to Sealing of His Clinical Record

The Third Department determined respondent, who is subject to Criminal Procedure Law 330.20 based on his acquittal of criminal charges by reason of mental disease or defect, was not entitled to a blanket sealing of the record of a recommitment proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 9.31 (F), but was entitled to the sealing of his clinical record pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 33.13:

Here, respondent was subject to CPL 330.20 based upon his acquittal of criminal charges by reason of mental disease or defect. A lack of responsibility for criminal conduct by reason of mental disease or defect is an affirmative defense that a defendant must raise and prove by a preponderance of the evidence (see Penal Law §§ 25.00 [2]; 40.15). By avoiding criminal penalties and becoming subject to CPL 330.20, “this places insanity acquittees in a significantly different posture than involuntarily committed civil patients” …, and “rational differences between procedures for commitment and release applicable to defendants found not responsible and persons involuntarily committed under the Mental Hygiene Law are justifiable” … . In light of this distinction, we agree with Supreme Court that the blanket sealing of the record that is specifically applicable to the involuntarily admission of civil patients under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31 (f) is not applicable to respondent … .

We reach a different conclusion, however, regarding defendant’s clinical record. Pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13, a clinical record for each patient or client shall be kept containing “information on all matters relating to the admission, legal status, care, and treatment of the patient or client and shall include all pertinent documents relating to the patient or client” (Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 [a]) and “such information about patients or clients . . . shall not be a public record,” subject to certain exceptions (Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 [c]). Although Supreme Court ruled that respondent’s clinical treatment records, related hospital records and unrelated medical records must be sealed, it is unclear if other information intended to be included in his clinical record under Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 (a) would be made public. In our view, respondent is entitled to the full protection of Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13, and all information contained in his clinical record, as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 (a), shall not be made public, subject to the statutory exceptions (see Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 [c]). Matter of John Z. (John Z.), 2015 NY Slip Op 04361, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

,

Despite the Fact that Defendant Entered Guilty Pleas in Two Counties, Only One SORA Disposition for the “Current Offenses” (Which Included the Offenses from Both Counties) Can Be Held

The Defendant was convicted (by guilty pleas) of sex offenses committed in two counties.  The two district attorney offices coordinated the defendant’s sentences to run concurrently.  Prior to defendant’s release a SORA hearing was held in one of the two counties, taking into account all of the offenses to which defendant pled guilty.  When defendant was notified the second county had scheduled a SORA hearing he filed a motion to dismiss the second proceeding, arguing it was unauthorized by SORA and barred by the doctrine of res judicata.  The Second Department agreed and dismissed the second proceeding.  The decision includes a substantive discussion of statutory interpretation and the purposes and application of the Sex Offender Registration Act:

…[T]he defendant pleaded guilty to charges contained in accusatory instruments filed in two different counties, two in Queens County and one in Richmond County. Nonetheless,… all of those offenses constituted “Current Offenses” for the purpose of determining the defendant’s risk level pursuant to SORA and, indeed, were considered as such by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the Supreme Court, Richmond County, in conducting their SORA assessment.

The only reasonable interpretation of the statute and Guidelines, and the one that most effectuates SORA’s purpose, is that only one SORA “disposition” may be made per “Current Offense,” or group of “Current Offenses.” Once a court has rendered “an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” and submitted such order to the Division (Correction Law § 168-d[3]), the Division has all the information it needs to create a file for the defendant and add it to the registry (see Correction Law § 168-b[1]). In this case, once the Division received the SORA order from Richmond County, it had the information it needed to serve SORA’s goal of “protect[ing] the public from” this particular sex offender … . People v Cook, 2015 NY Slip Op 04295, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

Defense Counsel’s Main Reason for the Peremptory Challenges To Which the Prosecutor Objected, i.e., the Potential Jurors Had Been Crime-Victims, Was Not Pretextual

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because Supreme Court improperly applied the Batson doctrine and denied defense counsel’s peremptory challenges to two jurors.  The prosecutor raised a “reverse-Batson” objection to defense peremptory challenges alleging the defense was excluding “Asian persons.”  Defense counsel offered race-neutral reasons for the peremptory challenges, the principal reason being that the potential jurors had been crime victims. Supreme Court found the proffered race-neutral reasons were pretextual.  The Second Department determined they were not:

“In Batson, the United States Supreme Court formulated a three-step test to assess whether peremptory challenges have been used to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race, gender, or other protected categories. In step one, the moving party must make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by showing that the facts and circumstances of the voir dire raise an inference that the other party excused one or more jurors for an impermissible reason. If the moving party makes a prima facie showing, the inquiry proceeds to step two, and the burden shifts to the adversary to provide a facially neutral explanation for the challenge. If the nonmoving party offers facially neutral reasons supporting the challenge, the inference of discrimination is overcome. Once facially neutral reasons are provided, the inquiry proceeds to step three, and the burden shifts back to the moving party to prove purposeful discrimination, and the trial court must determine whether the proffered reasons are pretextual” … . A trial court’s step-three determination that the facially race-neutral reasons for a nonmoving party’s peremptory challenges to particular jurors were pretextual is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where such determination is supported by the record … . * * *

The record does not support the trial court’s step-three finding of fact as to the subject prospective juror, to wit, that other prospective jurors who were crime victims and who indicated that the incident would not affect them had nevertheless been seated. “[A]ssurances from a challenged prospective juror that he or she could assess the evidence in a fair manner even though he or she was a crime victim are irrelevant to the determination of whether the basis of a peremptory challenge is pretextual” … . Nonetheless, the record indicates that defense counsel treated such jurors consistently by exercising a peremptory challenge for another prospective juror who was not Asian but was a crime victim who provided assurance that nothing in her experience would affect her as a juror. In addition, although defense counsel did not exercise peremptory challenges for K.A.M. and G.A., defense counsel sufficiently distinguished the experiences of those jurors from that of the subject prospective juror, who had been robbed at gunpoint … . Consequently, the record supports a finding that defense counsel had legitimate, nonpretextual reasons for challenging prospective jurors based on their crime victim status … .People v Grant, 2015 NY Slip Op 04505, 2nd Dept 5-17-15

 

,

Intent to Rob Sufficiently Proven by Circumstantial Evidence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined there was sufficient evidence to support the attempted robbery conviction.  Defendant, when the business was closed, was dressed in dark clothes, wearing a mask, and carrying a handgun (BB gun) while pounding on the door of the business asking to enter.  The defendant never was allowed inside and ran when the police arrived.  The defendant argued there was no evidence he intended to commit robbery, as opposed to some other crime.  The Court of Appeals found the circumstantial evidence of an intent to commit robbery sufficient:

…[H]ere there was evidence that defendant, who was unknown to any of the employees present that morning, and had no apparent business at Wendy’s, nevertheless showed up masked and armed, carrying a backpack, seeking entry at 6:30 am through a locked rear door not used by the public, with an escape vehicle conveniently parked nearby. This fit the pattern common to an early morning robbery of a commercial establishment and was sufficient to support the inference that defendant intended to steal. People v Lamont, 2015 NY Slip Op 04165, CtApp 5-14-15

 

Reduced Sentences Pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act Apply to Those on Parole As Well As Those Who Are Incarcerated

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the ability to apply for a reduced sentence for drug offenses pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act applied to those on parole, as well as those who are incarcerated: “The issue presented by this appeal is whether the 2011 amendments to CPL 440.46 expanded the class of defendants eligible for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act to include those who are on parole at the time resentencing is sought. We left this question open in People v Paulin (17 NY3d 238, 243 [2011]) and People v Santiago (17 NY3d 246, 247 [2011]), and now hold that the amendments did expand eligibility to parolees …” . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 04163, CtApp 5-14-15

 

,

Court Not Required to Obtain a New Risk Assessment Instrument After People Filed a Petition for an Upward Modification Based Upon a New Offense Committed In Violation of Defendant’s Probation

Re: the People’s petition for upward modification, the Second Department determined County Court was not required to obtain a new Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) after the defendant committed a “new” sex crime in violation of his probation.  The petition for upward modification was properly sent to the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) and the Board properly responded by letter:

Correction Law § 168-o specifies that, upon the receipt of such a petition, “the court shall forward a copy of the petition to the board and request an updated recommendation pertaining to the sex offender” (Correction Law § 168-o[4]). The County Court followed this procedure and received an “updated recommendation” from the Board, in the form of a letter. The RAI, an “objective assessment instrument” created by the Board to assess an offender’s “presumptive risk level” … was designed to assist the courts in reaching an initial SORA determination. Indeed, if a new RAI was completed upon the filing of the People’s petition, it would be almost identical to the initial RAI, in which 10 out of the 15 risk factors addressed the subject sex offense and crimes committed prior to that offense … . Thus, the County Court was not required to obtain a new RAI from the Board in considering the People’s petition for an upward modification pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(3). People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 04108, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

Court Could Not Promise a “Violent Felony Override” Allowing Defendant to Participate in Programs While Incarcerated—Only the DOCCS Can Determine Defendant’s Eligibility—Conviction by Guilty Plea Reversed

The Second Department determined the sentencing court had no authority to promise the defendant, as part of the plea bargain, a “violent felony override” which would allow the defendant to participate in a variety of programs while incarcerated. Where a defendant is statutorily qualified (as defendant was) it is up to the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) to determine a defendant’s eligibility for the programs.  Therefore, defendant’s guilty plea was reversed because it was based in part on misinformation (not knowing and voluntary):

… [A] “violent felony override” is “an imprecise and potentially confusing term that is sometimes used to describe a document referred to in 7 NYCRR 1900.4(c)(1)(iii) that permits the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter DOCCS) to ascertain whether an inmate has met one of the threshold requirements to be eligible for a temporary release program despite conviction of a specified violent felony offense” (id.; see Correction Law § 851[2]; Executive Order [Spitzer] No. 9 [9 NYCRR 6.9]; Executive Order [A. Cuomo] No. 2 [9 NYCRR 8.2]; 7 NYCRR 1900.4[c][1][ii], [iii]; [2]). “Certain subdivisions of the specified violent felony offenses will not disqualify an inmate from eligibility for temporary release. The document provided for in 7 NYCRR 1900.4(c)(1)(iii) need only set forth the exact offense, including the section, and subdivision if any, of the crimes of which the inmate was convicted. When the document indicates that the inmate was convicted of a subdivision of one of the enumerated violent felony offenses that does not automatically disqualify the inmate from eligibility for temporary release, the inmate may use it to establish that he has met one of the threshold requirements for eligibility” … . The document itself does not qualify an inmate for eligibility for temporary release … “It is for DOCCS, and not the court or the district attorney, to determine whether conviction under a particular section and subdivision disqualifies an inmate from eligibility” (id.; see generally 7 NYCRR 1900.4). The issuance of the document specified in 7 NYCRR 1900.4(c)(1)(iii) is not discretionary, and a defendant is entitled to have the exact statutory provisions under which he or she was convicted specified in the sentence and commitment … .

As part of the plea agreement, the County Court promised the defendant that it would sign a “violent felony override,” which would make the defendant eligible for several programs in prison. Since the document specified in 7 NYCRR 1900.4(c)(1)(iii) does not, by itself, qualify an inmate for eligibility for temporary release, and eligibility for temporary release programs are determined by DOCCS, the court exceeded its authority by promising the defendant something that it had no authority to promise in exchange for the defendant’s plea of guilty. Under these circumstances, the defendant’s plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent… . People v Ballato, 2015 NY Slip Op 04140, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

 

,

Conviction In a Military Tribunal of “Assault with Intent to Commit Rape” Was Not a “Sex Offense” Under New York Law—However, the Conviction Could Be Considered Under the “Prior Criminal History” Risk Assessment Category

The Second Department determined that conviction of “assault with intent to commit rape” in a military tribunal should not have been as a “prior sex crime” to determine defendant’s risk level.  The offense did not qualify as a “sex offense” under New York law and did not include all the elements of any New York sex offense.  The conviction, however, could be considered as “a prior criminal history” in the risk assessment:

…[T]he military offense of which the defendant was convicted did not qualify as a “sex offense,” as defined in Correction Law § 168-a(2)(d)(ii) … . Furthermore, contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s military offense does not “include[ ] all of the essential elements” (Correction Law § 168-a[2][d][i]) of attempted rape in the first degree under New York law, and thus does not qualify as a “sex offense” on that basis.

Although the defendant’s prior military offense of assault with intent to commit rape [*2]does not qualify as a sex offense, it does evidence a prior criminal history, People v Lancaster, 2015 NY Slip Op 04106, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

,

Counts Rendered Duplicitous by Trial Testimony/Prosecution Held to Erroneous Jury Charge to Which No Objection Was Made/Prosecutorial Misconduct Mandated a New Trial

The Second Department determined: (1) many counts of the indictment were rendered duplicitous because the complainant in this sex-offense case testified to more than one offense within the time-periods encompassed by indictment counts; (2) the prosecution must be held to the erroneous jury charge to which no objection was made (stating proof complainant was less than 14 was required when the statute says less than 15); (3) the prosecution did not prove complainant was less than 14—relevant counts dismissed; and (4) prosecutorial misconduct during summation (prosecutor acted as an unsworn witness, invited the jury to speculate, shifted the burden of proof, and made inflammatory remarks) mandated a new trial on the remaining counts:

Each count of an indictment may charge one offense only” (CPL 200.30[1]). A count in an indictment is void as duplicitous when that “single count charges more than one offense” … . Where, as here, the crime charged ” is completed by a discrete act, and where a count in the indictment is based on the repeated occurrence of that act over a course of time, the count includes more than a single offense and is duplicitous'” … . ” Even if a count is valid on its face, it is nonetheless duplicitous where the evidence presented . . . at trial makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict'” … . * * *

… [S]ince the People did not object to the erroneous jury charge, they were “bound to satisfy the heavier burden” … of proving, for counts 1 through 40, that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with a person less than 14 years old. Since the evidence demonstrated that the complainant was 14 years old during the time periods encompassed by counts 17 through 40 of the indictment, the People failed to satisfy this burden as to those counts. * * *

“[S]ummation is not an unbridled debate in which the restraints imposed at trial are cast aside so that counsel may employ all the rhetorical devices at his [or her] command” … . Rather, “[t]here are certain well-defined limits” (id. at 109). Among other things, “[the prosecutor] must stay within the four corners of the evidence’ and avoid irrelevant and inflammatory comments which have a tendency to prejudice the jury against the accused” … . A prosecutor would be well-advised not to test these limits, both so as to stay within his or her proper truth-seeking role … and so as to avoid the waste of time and expense that occurs when a new trial must be conducted solely on the basis of summation misconduct. Here, the prosecutor surpassed the “well-defined limits” … .

The prosecutor acted as an unsworn witness when, in response to defense counsel’s summation comments regarding the lack of corroborative medical evidence and the failure to call certain witnesses, the prosecutor told the jury that the uncalled witnesses had “nothing to offer” and that the medical records the prosecution failed to offer into evidence were “either irrelevant or cumulative” … . The prosecutor also improperly invited the jury to speculate as to certain matters, despite advance warning by the trial court not to engage in that line of comment … . Further, the prosecutor shifted the burden of proof by telling the jury, and repeatedly returning to this theme, that it had not “heard” any “compelling reason” for the complainant to lie, and by suggesting that the jury would have to convict the defendant if it did not “buy” the defendant’s explanation of certain evidence … . The prosecutor further improperly suggested that the jury would have to conclude that the complainant was “evil” in order to acquit the defendant … . The prosecutor repeatedly vouched for the complainant, while denigrating the defense and expressing his personal opinion as to the defendant’s lack of credibility … . Finally, the prosecutor made a number of inflammatory references to the defendant using the complainant as his “personal sex toy” … . People v Singh, 2015 NY Slip Op 04157, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

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