You are here: / Criminal Law
,

The Facts that a Witness Had Given a Statement to the Police and Was on the People’s Witness List Did Not Demonstrate the People Had Control Over the Witness—Request for Missing Witness Charge Properly Denied

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge for the defendant’s roommate, who had witnessed the shooting and had given a statement to the police during the initial investigation.  The facts that the roommate had given a statement and was placed on the People’s witness list did not demonstrate control over the witness. Without evidence of such control (for example, a material witness order) a missing witness charge is not appropriate:

…[T]he roommate was not under the People’s control at the time of trial by virtue of having provided a statement to the police during the initial investigation stage of the case. In addition, control cannot be found from the People’s placement of the roommate on their witness list, as their wish for his testimony is not indicia of having control over him. There was no material witness order. Indeed, the record contains no evidence that the People’s relationship with the defendant’s roommate gave them any more control over him at trial than the defendant may have had himself.  People v Roseboro, 2015 NY Slip Op 03192, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

Defendant Who Objected to the Amount of Restitution at Sentencing Was Entitled to a Hearing Even Though the Restitution-Amount Was (Apparently) Specified in the Plea Agreement

The Second Department determined defendant, who objected at sentencing to the amount of restitution, was entitled to a hearing, even though the specific restitution-amount was (apparently) made part of the plea agreement.  The restitution was related to the “buy money” used by the police in a related drug deal.  The court explained the relevant law:

Under Penal Law § 60.27(9), a defendant may be ordered to pay restitution for funds used by law enforcement in the purchase of drugs, if certain prerequisites are met. Before a defendant may be directed to pay restitution, a hearing must be held if either: (1) the defendant objects to the amount of restitution and the record is insufficient to establish the proper amount; or (2) the defendant requests a hearing (see Penal Law § 60.27[2]…). This procedure must be followed even if the plea agreement contains a provision for a specific amount of restitution … . People v Morrishill, 2015 NY Slip Op 03187, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

, ,

Prosecutor Acted as an Unsworn Witness and Improperly Suggested Defendant Committed Offenses With Which He Was Not Charged—Conviction Reversed in the Interest of Justice

The Second Department determined defendant’s weapon-possession conviction must be reversed because of the misconduct of the prosecutor.  Although the errors were not preserved by objection, the court invoked its “interest of justice” power to reach the issue.  The prosecutor functioned as an unsworn witness by indicating, during cross-examination of the defendant, that her office had called a restaurant to find out the closing time and using that information to impeach the defendant’s testimony. The prosecutor, in her summation, accused the defendant of lying based on the unsworn “restaurant closing-time” information she had put on the record.  In addition, the prosecutor suggested that defendant intended to use the weapon to harm someone and had committed multiple gun-possession offenses, unsupported claims not relevant to the charged offense:

The prosecutor improperly functioned as an unsworn witness when she cross-examined the defendant regarding the closing time of a restaurant in Brooklyn … .  The police officers who conducted the traffic stop testified on their direct examinations that the traffic stop occurred at 9:35 p.m. On his direct examination, in contrast, the defendant testified that the traffic stop occurred between 8:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m., while he and the other occupants of the vehicle were on their way to a restaurant in Brooklyn. During the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defendant, she improperly suggested facts not in evidence when she implied that the District Attorney’s office had called the restaurant to ascertain its hours of operation, and asked the defendant whether he testified that the traffic stop occurred between 8:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. because he knew that the restaurant was not open at 9:35 p.m. … . During summation, the prosecutor again improperly implied, without having submitted any evidence about the closing time of the restaurant, that the defendant had lied about what he was doing at the time of the traffic stop … .

Further, the prosecutor made improper remarks during summation which suggested that the defendant possessed the weapon with an intent to use it to harm someone, even though this was not an element of the crime for which the defendant was on trial … . Similarly, the prosecutor’s questioning of the defendant about one of his tattoos was improper and led to the inflammatory and unsupported inference that the defendant had previously used the weapon to harm someone … . It was also improper for the prosecutor to argue during summation that the defendant had learned certain information during the pretrial hearing even though there was no evidence to support this assertion … .

In addition, the prosecutor’s statement during summation that the defendant did not make any sudden movements during the traffic stop because he had already “played out this exact scenario in his mind . . . every time he left his house with that gun” was improper speculation, without any basis in the record, that the defendant had committed multiple gun possession offenses prior to the subject incident which led to his arrest … .People v Rowley, 2015 NY Slip Op 02988, 2nd Dept 4-8-15

 

,

Defendant’s Admissions Re: Uncharged Sex Offenses Justified Upward Departure from the Presumptive Level—Criteria for Upward Departures Explained

In a risk assessment proceeding pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), the Second Department affirmed the SORA court’s upward departure from the presumptive risk level (level two to level three).  The court explained the general criteria for upward departures. First the court must determine if the People have articulated, as a matter of law, a legitimate aggravating factor. And second, the court must determine if the factor has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence.  If those two criteria are met, departure is discretionary. Here the defendant’s admission that he had sexually abused two young girls eight years before the commission of the charged offenses was deemed a legitimate aggravating circumstance not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines:

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” … . 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 (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4…).

Here, the People satisfied their burden. An offender’s commission of uncharged sex crimes may constitute an appropriate aggravating factor for purposes of an upward departure if, as here, those uncharged sex crimes have not been accounted for in the Risk Assessment Instrument … . People v DeWoody, 2015 NY Slip Op 02946, 2nd Dept 4-8-15

 

, ,

City’s Possession of Property Seized Upon Arrest, But Which Was No Longer Needed by the People in Connection with the Case, Was Held by the City as a Bailee—the Bailment Did Not Originate in a Contractual Relationship—Therefore the One-Year-Ninety-Days General Municipal Law Statute of Limitations, Not the Six-Year Contract Statute of Limitations, Applied—Action Was Time-Barred

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that the City was a bailee with respect to its possession of defendant’s computers seized upon defendant’s arrest.  When the district attorney determined the computers were no longer needed in connection with defendant’s case, defendant was told he could pick them up.  When the defendant attempted to do so, he was told the computers had been destroyed.  The defendant then sued the city under a bailment theory.  The suit was timely if the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions applied, but untimely if the one-year-90-days statute of limitations in the General Municipal Law applied.  The court determined that the bailment did not result from a contractual relationship (seizure upon arrest).  Therefore the General Municipal Law statute of limitations for actions against the city alleging negligent damage to property applied and the action was time-barred:

Here, the evidence submitted by the City in support of its motion established, prima facie, that the claim between the parties did not originate by virtue of a contractual relationship. The City took control of the plaintiff’s property only in connection with his arrest. Hence, … it cannot be said that the liability alleged by the plaintiff in the complaint “had its genesis in [a] contractual relationship of the parties” … . “A contract cannot be implied in fact where the facts are inconsistent with its existence” … . While the City’s act of taking possession of the plaintiff’s personal property created a bailment, it has been recognized that a bailment does not necessarily and always arise from a contractual relationship … . Thus, as General Municipal Law § 50-i(1) applies to all causes of action against the City seeking to recover damages for injury to property because of negligence or a wrongful act, and the complaint asserts that the City destroyed the plaintiff’s property, the 1-year-and-90-day statute of limitations, not the 6-year limitations period, applies to this action. Wikiert v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 02960, 2nd Dept 4-8-14

 

,

Evidence of a Defendant’s Silence In Response to Questions Posed by the Police Cannot Be Introduced in the People’s Case-In-Chief

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge dissent, determined that state evidentiary rules were violated by testimony, during the People’s case-in-chief, describing the defendant’s silence following some of the questions asked by the police during interrogation. The court noted that although there are (very) limited circumstances when a defendant’s silence, or failure to give a timely exculpatory explanation, can be used to impeach a defendant who takes the stand, no such flexibility applies to the case-in-chief.  There can be many reasons for a defendant’s silence in response to a question, so the probative value of silence is limited.  On the other hand, there is a real danger a jury will interpret a defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt. The error was not harmless as a matter of law–defendant’s conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered:

If silence could constitute an answer, then the People could meet their burden simply by asking a question. Moreover, evidence of a defendant’s selective silence “is of extremely limited probative worth” … . A defendant who agrees to speak to the police but refuses to answer certain questions may have the same legitimate or innocent reasons for refusing to answer as a defendant who refuses to speak to the police at all … . Furthermore, the potential risk of prejudice from evidence of a defendant’s selective silence is even greater than the risk to a defendant who chooses to remain totally silent. Jurors are more likely to construe a defendant’s refusal to answer certain questions as an admission of guilt if the defendant has otherwise willingly answered other police inquiries. The ambiguous nature and limited probative worth of a defendant’s selective silence is outweighed by the substantial risk of prejudice to the defendant from admission of such evidence … . Evidence of a defendant’s selective silence therefore generally may not be used by the People during their case-in-chief and may be used only as “a device for impeachment” of a defendant’s trial testimony in limited and unusual circumstances … .

The People’s use of defendant’s selective silence in this case was improper for another reason. In her opening statement, the prosecutor told the jury that defendant did not admit or deny the accusations when he spoke to the detective. Furthermore, during direct examination of the detective, the prosecutor elicited testimony establishing not only that defendant did not answer when asked whether he had sex with the victim, but also that he did not deny it either. In addition to using defendant’s selective silence as a purported impeachment device during their direct case, the People also invited the jury to infer an admission of guilt from defendant’s failure to deny the accusations. The risk that the jury made such an impermissible inference is substantial where, as here, defendant selectively answered some police questions but not others, and the court refused to provide any curative instruction. The prosecutor’s comments regarding defendant’s selective silence during opening statements were improper, and the court erred in allowing testimony concerning defendant’s selective silence at trial, inasmuch as the comments and testimony allowed the jury to “draw an unwarranted inference of guilt” … . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 02866, CtApp 4-7-15

 

,

Reversal Due to Ineffective Assistance Affirmed Over Forceful Dissent

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of defendant’s conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel, noting counsel’s failure to invoke the court’s prior preclusion order and the presentation of an alibi defense for the wrong day.  Judge Pigott wrote a long and detailed dissent.  People v Jarvis, 2015 NY Slip Op 02869, CtApp 4-7-15

 

, ,

Defendant Cannot Be Convicted of Both Intentional and Depraved Indifference Murder Where there Is a Single Victim/”Transferred Intent” Theory Explained and Applied/Insufficient Evidence Defendant Intimidated a Witness—the Witness’ Grand Jury Testimony Should Not Have Been Admitted

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a partial dissent, resolved a split among the departments and determined a defendant cannot be convicted of both intentional murder and depraved indifference murder where there is a single victim. It was alleged that the defendant fired his weapon at one person, but killed an uninvolved bystander who was several buildings away. The trial judge submitted both the intentional and depraved indifference murder theories to the jury in the conjunctive (not in the alternative). Defendant was convicted of both offenses. The Court of Appeals’ analysis turned on “transferred intent.”  Conviction under New York’s “transferred intent” theory requires the jury to conclude the defendant acted intentionally.  Intentional murder, even where “transferred intent” is involved, is incompatible with depraved indifference murder, which is, by definition, not intentional. Where there is a single victim, only one or the other mental state can apply, not both. The Court of Appeals further determined the trial court erred when it allowed in evidence the grand jury testimony of a witness who refused to testify, purportedly out of fear. There was not sufficient evidence connecting the defendant to any actions or words aimed at instilling fear in the witness.  A new trial was ordered for the intentional, depraved indifference and attempted murder counts:

The purpose of the transferred intent theory is “to ensure that a person will be prosecuted for the crime [that person] intended to commit even when, because of bad aim or some other ‘lucky mistake,’ the intended target was not the actual victim” … . Given this stated goal, the Court has cautioned that transferred intent “should not be employed to ‘multiply criminal liability, but to prevent a defendant who has committed all the elements of a crime (albeit not upon the same victim) from escaping responsibility for that crime” … . Hence, it should be applied where a defendant “could not be convicted of the crime because the mental and physical elements do not concur as to either the intended or actual victim” … .

… Whether based on the defendant’s conscious objective towards the intended victim, or on a transferred intent theory directed at a different, and actual, victim, defendant’s conviction depends on a jury finding that defendant harbored the requisite intentional mental state. Defendant cannot then also be guilty of the same murder premised on a depraved state of mind.

That the People had at their disposal two bases by which to establish the requisite state of mind — transferred intent and depraved indifference — does not permit the People to seek multiple convictions for the one murder for which the defendant was charged, prosecuted and tried. To hold otherwise is contrary to “the basic principle that a defendant should not be convicted and punished more than once for conduct which, although constituting only one prohibited act, may because of statutory definition, be theorized as constituting separate criminal acts” … . Under New York law, defendant is held accountable for the murder he committed, even if it was not the one he set out to complete (Penal Law 125.25 [1]). People v Dubarry, 2015 NY Slip Op 02865, CtApp 4-7-15

 

,

As Long as a Police Officer’s Mistake is “Objectively Reasonable,” a Stop Based Upon the Mistake Will Not Be Invalidated/There Is No Analytical Distinction Between a Mistake of Law and a Mistake of Fact in this Context

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, determined that a police officer’s objectively reasonable mistake about the law will not invalidate a stop based upon that mistake.  Here the defendant was stopped by the police after she rolled through a stop sign at the exit of a supermarket parking lot.  The defendant was ultimately arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated.  It turned out that the stop sign, although regulation size and color, was not registered with the town and was therefore not “legally authorized.” The local court dismissed the charges, finding the initial vehicle stop, based upon a mistake of law, improper. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the mistake of law was “objectively reasonable.”  The court noted that a police officer cannot be expected to know the location of every “unregistered” stop sign in his/her jurisdiction. The court made it clear, in deciding whether the actions taken by the police were objectively reasonable, there should be no distinction between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law:

…[W]e look to the reasonableness of the officer’s belief that defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law, without drawing any distinction between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. * * * … [W]e are not saying that it would have been objectively reasonable for the arresting officer to have claimed ignorance of the requirement in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1100 (b) that a stop sign in a parking lot be registered to be valid. We are saying that the stop was nonetheless constitutionally justified because the officer was not chargeable with knowing each and every stop sign that was registered under the Newark Village Code.  People v Guthrie, 2015 NY Slip Op 02867, CtApp 4-7-15

 

A Defendant Who Has Been Found Mentally Unfit to Proceed To Trial Cannot Be Subjected to a Parole Revocation Proceeding

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a defendant who has been deemed unfit to proceed to trial following a psychiatric examination cannot be subjected to a parole violation hearing.  The defendant, who was on lifetime parole for murder and had been committed to the custody of the Office of Mental Health (OMH), assaulted a fellow patient.  After a psychiatric examination, the defendant was deemed unfit to proceed to trial on charges stemming from the assault. Thereafter the Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS) brought parole revocation proceedings against the defendant. The defendant was transferred to the custody of DOCCS and, after a hearing, his parole was revoked and he was incarcerated.  The Appellate Division (reversing Supreme Court) granted the defendant’s petition to annul the parole revocation, and returned the defendant to parole. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that subjecting the defendant to the parole revocation hearing, after defendant had been deemed mentally incompetent, violated defendant’s right to due process.  The Court of Appeals noted that its ruling may result in the release of persons found unfit for trial, something only the legislature can remedy:

It is, of course, well established — as a matter of common law and also of due process — that “a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to a trial” … . The State contends that parole revocation proceedings do not raise the same concerns because parole revocation is not part of a criminal prosecution.

It is true that parole revocation deprives an individual only of “a restricted form of liberty” and thus implicates “some form of due process [but] not the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal proceeding” … . Just as due process requires us to safeguard the liberty of parolees, we must also recognize the state’s strong interest in effectively managing parolees without unduly burdensome procedural restraints … . However, in balancing these competing interests, we conclude that several of the reasons underlying the bar against prosecuting a mentally incompetent defendant apply also to parole revocation hearings. Clearly salient are constitutional concerns about the fundamental fairness of a proceeding in which a defendant who is unable to make decisions about his defense may be returned to prison. But foremost is the concern already mentioned, about the accuracy of the proceedings. An incompetent parolee is not in a position to exercise rights, such as the right to testify and the opportunity to confront adverse witnesses (see 9 NYCRR 8005.18 [b] [2], [4]), that are directly related to ensuring the accuracy of fact-finding. It is true, as the State emphasizes, that the parolee is guaranteed a right to representation by counsel at the revocation hearing. But representation is not enough. A parolee must be able to provide the factual underpinnings of the presentation.

We conclude, therefore, that holding a parole revocation hearing after a court has deemed the parolee to be mentally incompetent violates the due process provision in our State Constitution… . Matter of Lopez v Evans, 2015 NY Slip Op 02868, CtApp 4-7-15

 

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