You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Evidence Seized In Violation of Probationer’s Constitutional Rights Should Not Have Been Used as the Basis for a Probation Revocation

The Fourth Department determined evidence which was suppressed because it was unconstitutionally seized could not be used to support a revocation of probation, noting that a probationer loses some privacy and Fourth Amendment rights, but not all of both:

The Court of Appeals has “recognized . . . that a probationer loses some privacy expectations and some part of the protections of the Fourth Amendment, but not all of both” …, and “that a person on parole, although legally in custody and subject to supervision, is nevertheless constitutionally entitled to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. A person on probation, subject to similar restraints (see CPL 410.50, subds. 1, 2)[,] should be similarly protected” … . Furthermore, with respect to evidence that was illegally seized from a person under a revocable disposition, “the Court of Appeals has applied the New York constitution to suppress such evidence at a parole revocation hearing . . . , and it would seem to follow a fortiori that such evidence would not be admissible at a probation violation hearing, which is even closer to a criminal action than a parole violation hearing” … . Here, the court concluded that the stop and search of defendant and his home were violative of defendant’s rights under the Constitutions of New York and the United States. Consequently, the court erred in relying upon the evidence seized as a result of those improper searches to conclude that defendant violated a condition of his probation… . People v Robinson, 2015 NY Slip Op 03967, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

, , ,

Division of Parole’s Mistake Which Resulted in the Incarceration of the Claimant Was Privileged—Claimant’s Action for False Imprisonment Properly Dismissed

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined a mistake made by the Division of Parole, which resulted in claimant’s prosecution and imprisonment for a violation of parole at a time when his parole had been terminated, was privileged.  Therefore, the claimant’s action for false imprisonment was properly dismissed:

To establish a claim of false imprisonment, claimant must demonstrate, among other things, that the confinement was not privileged … . “To that end, it is settled that ‘[a]n otherwise unlawful detention is privileged where the confinement was by arrest under a valid process issued by a court having jurisdiction or parole authorities'” … . Here, there is no dispute that claimant’s confinement was pursuant to parole violation warrants that were valid on their face. Yet, according to claimant, because his sentence should have terminated by law on March 10, 2005, the Division acted without jurisdiction when it commenced the April 2005 parole revocation proceeding, revoked his parole and thereafter subjected him to various periods of incarceration.

“‘There is a distinction between acts performed in excess of jurisdiction and acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter. The former is privileged, the latter is not'” … .

While the [Division of Parole’s] ….interpretation of Executive Law former § 259-j (3-a) may well have been mistaken, any such “error in judgment neither negates nor defeats defendant’s claim of privilege” … . The statute vested the Division with the authority to grant a termination of sentence under certain described circumstances, and interpreting the provisions that implement such power is a legitimate part of the Division’s function .. . The Division made a reasoned judgment …[which] was neither inconsistent with nor contrary to extant judicial authority … . Thus, at most, the Division “acted in excess of its jurisdiction, not in the complete absence [thereof], and its conduct therefore was privileged”… . Marsh v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03320, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

,

Proof Requirements for Criminal Enterprise Explained/Sufficiency of Evidence and Weight of Evidence Review Criteria Explained

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, determined the Appellate Division had applied the wrong legal standards to its “sufficiency of evidence” and “weight of the evidence” review of defendants’ enterprise corruption convictions.   The Appellate Division concluded “the People failed to introduce any evidence of a leadership structure, overall planning of the criminal enterprise, or any communication between [the defendants] and any of the … employees in furtherance of the criminal enterprise.”  The alleged criminal enterprise was a company, in which the defendants were principals, which did construction testing (concrete and steel, for example).  It was alleged that the company routinely issued fraudulent certifications and test results indicating the construction materials (used at hundreds of construction sites) complied with the requirements of the city administrative code. The Court of Appeals determined that the structure of the company constituted “evidence of a leadership structure” and communication among the defendants and the company employees (regarding the issuance of fraudulent test results) could be easily inferred from the facts. The Appellate Division had vacated the enterprise corruption convictions.  The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the Appellate Division for a “weight of the evidence” review of the enterprise corruption proof under the correct legal standards.  (The Court of Appeals cannot do a “weight of the evidence” review.)

Sufficiency and weight review are distinct concepts. To determine whether a verdict was based on sufficient proof, a court must “marshal competent facts most favorable to the People and determine whether, as a matter of law, a jury could logically conclude that the People sustained [their] burden of proof” … . Evidence of guilt is legally sufficient if the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, provide a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the finder of fact could have rationally concluded that the elements of the crime were established beyond a reasonable doubt … .

A legally sufficient verdict, however, may be against the weight of the evidence … . Unlike a sufficiency analysis, weight of the evidence review requires an intermediate appellate court to act, in effect, as a second jury … by rendering its own determination of the facts as proven at trial … .  People v Kancharla, 2014 NY Slip Op 03295, CtApp 5-8-14

 

, ,

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

 

Court Should Not Have Instructed the Jury on the Initial Aggressor Exception to the Justification Defense—No Evidence to Support the Exception

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the trial court should not have instructed the jury that the justification defense would not apply if the jury determined defendant was the initial aggressor.  The victim was swinging a mop handle, while the defendant used a gun. The majority held that there were no facts in the record from which it could be inferred the defendant was the initial aggressor: “In charging the jury on the justification defense, the court erred when, over defendant’s objection, it included the initial aggressor exception to the defense embodied in Penal Law § 35.15(1)(b). This concept, that defendant would not have been justified in using deadly physical force if he was the initial aggressor, was completely inapplicable to the facts of the case. Although the jury could have reasonably determined that defendant’s use of deadly force was unjustified (where defendant used a gun against the deceased, who wielded a mop handle), it could not have reasonably found that defendant was the initial aggressor because the evidence does not support such a conclusion. There was no evidence that defendant was the first person in the fatal encounter to use or threaten the imminent use of deadly force, or any kind of force, for that matter. On the contrary, the evidence tended to indicate either that it was the deceased who first used force, by swinging a mop handle at defendant, or that defendant and the deceased used or threatened force simultaneously.” People v Valentin, 2015 NY Slip Op 03914, 1st Dept 5-7-15

 

Where One Resident Consents to a Search and Another Resident Does Not Consent, the Search Can Not Be Executed—However, the Refusal to Consent Is Only Operative As Long As the Objecting Resident Is Physically Present

The Third Department explained that where one resident consents to a search of the premises, but another resident does not consent, the search can not be conducted.  However, a resident’s refusal to consent is operative for only as long as the resident is present at the premises.  Here the objecting resident left the premises and the police properly executed the search with the consent of the remaining resident:

Even in the absence of a warrant, police may lawfully search a residence where an inhabitant with apparent authority to consent to the search freely and voluntarily does so … . However, where one resident consents to a search and another refuses, “[the] warrantless search of [the] shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him [or her] on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident” … . Notably, however, the objecting resident’s refusal operates to counteract the other resident’s consent only so long as the objecting resident is physically present on the premises … . People v Grillo, 2015 NY Slip Op 03880, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

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