You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Concise Description of the Application of the DeBour Street-Encounter Criteria Leading to the Seizure of a Weapon

The Second Department, in finding the seizure of a gun from the defendant proper, provided a concise application of the DeBour street encounter factors:

The arresting officer testified that he saw, from a distance of “[l]ess than a foot” away, “what looked to be” “two to three inches” of “the butt of a firearm” that was “pulling down” the defendant’s rear pants pocket. These observations gave the officer an objective, credible reason to approach the defendant … . Upon seeing the officer, the defendant immediately turned sideways to obscure his rear pants pockets from the officer’s view, giving the officer a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” justifying greater intrusion to conduct an inquiry … . At that point, when the defendant lowered his hands in the direction of his waist area, the officer had reason to suspect that he was in danger of physical injury and was authorized to conduct a protective frisk (see CPL 140.50[3]…). Probable cause for the defendant’s arrest arose after the officer grabbed the defendant’s hands for his own safety and, upon “wrestling” with the defendant, saw that the item in the defendant’s back pocket was, in fact, a firearm … . Thus, the record establishes that the officer’s conduct was justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope and intensity to the circumstances of the encounter as it developed … . Moreover, given the legality of the officer’s actions, the defendant’s claim that his post-arrest statement to police should be suppressed as the product of an illegal search or seizure is without merit… . People v Owens, 2015 NY Slip Op 02790, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

Sentencing Court Must Place on the Record Its Reasons for Denying Youthful Offender Status

The Second Department noted that the sentencing court must always place on the record its reasons for denying youthful offender status to an eligible youth:

In People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497, 499), the Court of Appeals held that compliance with CPL 720.20(1), which provides that the sentencing court “must” determine whether an eligible defendant is to be treated as a youthful offender, “cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request.” Compliance with CPL 720.20(1) requires the sentencing court to actually consider and make an independent determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment … .

Here, the Supreme Court failed to adequately place on the record its reasons for denying the defendant youthful offender status. Under these circumstances, we vacate the defendant’s sentence, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment. People v Stevens, 2015 NY Slip Op 02794, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

Court’s Failure to Share Entire Contents of Note from Jury Constituted a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal

The Second Department determined the trial court’s failure to share the entire contents of a note from the jury was a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal:

CPL 310.30 requires that trial courts give notice to the People and the defense before responding to a note from a deliberating jury … . A court’s ” core responsibility under the statute is both to give meaningful notice to counsel of the specific content of the jurors’ request—in order to ensure counsel’s opportunity to frame intelligent suggestions for the fairest and least prejudicial response—and to provide a meaningful response to the jury'” … . Meaningful notice means notice of the “actual specific content of the jurors’ request” …, and “a court must read a jury note verbatim’ so that the parties have the opportunity to accurately analyze the jury’s deliberations and frame intelligent suggestions for the court’s response'” … .

“Although not every violation of CPL 310.30 is immune from normal preservation principles, a failure to apprise counsel about the specific contents of a substantive note from a deliberating jury violates the fundamental tenants of CPL 310.30 and qualifies as a mode of proceedings error,” which does not require preservation … .

Here, the trial court’s failure to share the entire contents of a substantive note from the jury constituted a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal … . People v Cotton, 2015 NY Slip Op 02780, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

CRIMINAL LAW/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) Criteria for Downward Departure Explained (Not Met Here)

The Second Department, in finding the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure to reduce his risk assessment, explained the downward departure criteria:

There is a three-step process to be followed in determining whether a downward departure is appropriate … . “At the first step, the court must decide whether the . . . mitigating circumstances alleged by [the defendant] are, as a matter of law, of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines. At the second step, the court must decide whether the [defendant] has adduced sufficient evidence to meet [his or her] burden of proof in establishing that the alleged . . . mitigating circumstances actually exist in the case at hand . . . . [A]t the third step, the court must exercise its discretion by weighing the . . . mitigating factors to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an [over-assessment] of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … .

Upon our application of the standards set forth in People v Gillotti (23 NY2d 841), the record does not demonstrate the appellant’s entitlement to a downward departure … . The appellant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence …, the existence of any mitigating circumstance “of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . People v Stewart, 2015 NY Slip Op 02741, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

, ,

Defense Counsel’s Absence When Judge Decided to Replace a Sick Juror Not Preserved by Objection/Court Need Not Put on the Record Its Consideration of Alternatives to Courtroom Closure/Factual Allegations Insufficient to Justify a Suppression Hearing

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, determined defense counsel’s absence from the courtroom when the judge put on the record that he was replacing a sick juror was not a mode of proceedings error and was not preserved by objection. Defense counsel entered the courtroom just as the judge seated the alternate juror and did not object. The Court of Appeals also determined the trial judge was not required to put on the record his consideration of measures other than the closure of the courtroom when undercover officers testified, and sufficient facts were not raised in the defense motion papers to justify a suppression hearing:

Here, although defense counsel was not present in court while the judge was stating on the record that he intended to replace the sick juror and counsel for co-defendant was objecting to that replacement, the record shows that prior to arriving in the courtroom, counsel was aware from his discussion with the court that there was a sick juror and that the court had previously excused an alternate juror for psychological reasons. Most importantly, defense counsel was in the courtroom when the judge told the alternate to take the seat of the sick juror. If counsel had any objection to the replacement of the juror, including a desire to be heard further on the issue, he had the time and the opportunity to make his position known. It was incumbent upon him to raise an objection at that time, before the trial proceeded. Certainly, the better practice would have been for the trial judge to await counsel’s arrival before placing his decision regarding the juror on the record. While, as the dissent notes, defense counsel was absent during the on-the-record discussion about dismissing the juror, nonetheless, counsel was present at the critical time when the sick juror was being replaced by the alternate, and counsel did not raise any objection concerning the right to counsel or otherwise, at a time when the trial court had the opportunity to change course. * * *

… [T]his Court has rejected the argument that United States Supreme Court precedent requires a trial court to explain, on the record, the alternatives to closure that it considered (People v Echevarria, 21 NY3d 1, 18 [2013]; People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 504 [1997]). Rather, we have concluded that where the record establishes, as it does here, the need to close a portion of the proceedings, “it can be implied that the trial court, in ordering closure, determined that no lesser alternative would protect the articulated interest”… . * * *

… [D]efendant’s simple denial that he was not engaged in any criminal conduct at the time he was stopped did not raise any issue of fact requiring a [suppression] hearing. It was defendant’s role in the conspiracy … and his conduct … at the time of the purchase of the kilogram of cocaine that provided probable cause to arrest him. Under those circumstances, it was incumbent upon defendant to refute the allegations in order to obtain a hearing. People v Garay, 2015 NY Slip Op 02672, CtApp 3-31-15

 

,

Even If Information About Prosecution Witness’ Recent Drug Sales Had Been Withheld in Violation of Brady/Giglio, the Withheld Information Was Not “Material” In That It Would Not Have Affected the Outcome

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined that there was insufficient evidence that a Brady/Giglio violation had occurred and that, assuming there was a violation, it would not have affected the verdict.  The underlying question was whether the prosecution was aware a cooperating witnesses had lied on the stand when he testified he no longer sold drugs:

…[D]efendant’s principal claim is that the People violated their obligations under Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]) and its progeny. It is well established that a defendant has the right, under both the State and Federal Constitutions, to discover favorable evidence in the People’s possession that is material to guilt or punishment … . Furthermore, the People’s Brady obligations apply to both exculpatory and impeachment evidence (see Giglio v United States, 405 US 150, 154 [1972]). Such evidence, however, “is subject to Brady disclosure only if it is within the prosecution’s custody, possession, or control” … . “To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material” … . * * *

It is axiomatic that there can be no Brady violation unless the suppressed information is “material” … . Where, as here, a defendant has made a specific request for the undisclosed information, “the materiality element is established provided there exists a reasonable possibility that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” … . Under this standard, even if the information about [the witness’] recent drug sales had been disclosed before the end of trial, there is no reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different. People v Stilley, 2015 NY Slip Op 02715, First Dept 3-31-15

 

,

Line Between Inadmissible Testimonial (Hearsay) Statements and Admissible Non-Testimonial Information Clarified

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, with a concurring opinion, determined the defendant’s right to confrontation was violated in one case and not violated in another. (Ostensibly) the hearsay was not admitted for the truth of the matters asserted, but rather to explain police actions.  In one case, the hearsay was deemed testimonial (and inadmissible) because it was substantive enough to have effectively replaced the declarant’s testimony.  In the other case, the information was not deemed testimonial, because any connection with the information and an out-of-court declarant was speculative . The relevant law was described as follows:

…[T]he federal Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial,” unless that witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him or her (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 53-54 [2004]…). “[A] statement will be treated as testimonial only if it was ‘procured with a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony’ ” … and, “[i]f a different purpose underlies its creation, the issue of admissibility of the statement is subject to federal or state rules of evidence” … . Our precedent teaches that “two factors . . . are ‘especially important’ in resolving whether to designate a statement as testimonial—-‘first, whether the statement was prepared in a manner resembling ex parte examination and second, whether the statement accuses defendant of criminal wrongdoing’ ” … . “[T]he ‘purpose of making or generating the statement, and the declarant’s motive for doing so,’ also ‘inform [those] two interrelated touchstones’ ” … .

But this is not to say that testimonial statements are invariably intolerable at trial. The federal Confrontation Clause “does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted” … . Moreover, subject to the exercise of a court’s discretion, otherwise inadmissible evidence that “provide[s] background information as to how and why the police pursued and confronted [a] defendant” … may be admitted to help a jury understand a case in context “if the evidence’s probative value in explaining the [pursuit] outweighs any undue prejudice to the defendant,” and if the evidence is accompanied by a ” proper limiting instruction[]’ “… . People v Garcia, 2015 NY Slip Op 02675, CtApp 3-31-15

 

,

Introduction of “Prompt Outcry” Evidence in a Rape Trial, After the People, Pre-Trial, Had Informed Defense Counsel and the Court There Would Be No Evidence of a “Prompt Outcry,” Required Reversal

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversed defendant’s conviction in a rape case because the People, prior to trial, indicated there would be no “prompt outcry” evidence and, at trial, “prompt outcry” evidence was introduced.  Because defense counsel had formulated trial strategy and conducted voir dire with the understanding the first time the victim told anyone about the alleged offense was six months after the incident, the prejudice resulting from the “surprise” evidence was substantial:

Based on this record, the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial or to strike a portion of complainant’s testimony. Undisputedly, complainant’s testimony that she told her friend “what happened” conveyed to the jury that she had engaged in sexual intercourse with defendant that evening. Although this testimony was relevant, we have observed that relevancy, alone, does not render evidence admissible because “‘it may be rejected if its probative value is outweighed by the danger that its admission would . . . unfairly surprise a party[] or create substantial danger of undue prejudice to one of the parties'” … .

Relying on the People’s pre-trial representation, defense counsel shaped his trial strategy — from voir dire to his opening statement — based on his founded belief that complainant did not disclose the alleged rapes until months after they occurred. Complainant’s testimony that she disclosed her accusations against defendant — even partially — the same night as the alleged assaults, took defendant by surprise because it was inconsistent with the People’s earlier position and with complainant’s grand jury testimony. Despite the People’s admission that they “expected” complainant to testify in such a manner, the prosecutor inexplicably failed to convey this information to defense counsel. As a result, the surprise testimony eviscerated counsel’s credibility with the jury and irreparably undermined his trial strategy. People v Shaulov, 2015 NY Slip Op 02676, CtApp 3-31-15

 

 

,

Frisk Not Justified Under DeBour Analysis

The Fourth Department determined the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion defendant was committing a crime and had no reasonable basis to suspect he was in danger at the time he frisked the defendant:

It is well established that, in evaluating the legality of police conduct, we “must determine whether the action taken was justified in its inception and at every subsequent stage of the encounter” (…People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 215). In De Bour, the Court of Appeals “set forth a graduated four-level test for evaluating street encounters initiated by the police: level one permits a police officer to request information from an individual and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality; level two, the common-law right of inquiry, permits a somewhat greater intrusion and requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot; level three authorizes an officer to forcibly stop and detain an individual, and requires a reasonable suspicion that the particular individual was involved in a felony or misdemeanor; [and] level four, arrest, requires probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime” (People v Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 498-499).

Here, contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the information provided in the 911 dispatch coupled with the officers’ observations provided the police with “an objective, credible reason for initially approaching defendant and requesting information from him” … . The officers pulled up next to defendant and, without exiting the vehicle, asked to see defendant’s identification and asked defendant where he was going and where he was coming from, which was a permissible level one intrusion … .

Contrary to the further contention of defendant, we conclude that his failure to answer the officers’ questions about where he was going and where he was coming from, when added to the information acquired from the police dispatch and defendant’s heightened interest in the patrol car, created a “founded suspicion that criminality [was] afoot,” justifying a level two intrusion … . The common-law right of inquiry “authorized the police to ask questions of defendant—and to follow defendant while attempting to engage him—but not to seize him in order to do so” … . The police therefore acted lawfully in following defendant for the purpose of obtaining an answer to their valid questions about his whereabouts. The encounter, however, quickly escalated to a level three intrusion when one of the officers grabbed defendant’s hand and patted the outside of his pants pocket. “[A] stop and frisk is a more obtrusive procedure than a mere request for information or a stop invoking the common-law right of inquiry, and as such normally must be founded on a reasonable suspicion that the particular person has committed or is about to commit a crime” … . ” [W]here no more than a common-law right to inquire exists, a frisk must be based upon a reasonable suspicion that the officers are in physical danger and that defendant poses a threat to their safety’ “* * * …[U]nlike in other cases where we have sanctioned a frisk for weapons, there was no evidence in this case that defendant refused to comply with the officers’ directives or that he made any furtive, suspicious, or threatening movements … . Indeed, under the circumstances of this case, the presence of defendant’s hand in his left pants pocket was particularly innocuous and ” readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation’ ” … . Defendant retrieved his identification from his left pants pocket and returned it to that pocket after complying with the officers’ request to produce identification … .

We therefore conclude that, “[b]ecause the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that defendant was committing a crime and had no reasonable basis to suspect that he was in danger of physical injury, . . . the ensuing pat frisk of defendant was unlawful” … . People v Burnett, 2015 NY Slip Op 02613, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

,

Failure to Read Defendant His Miranda Rights, After the Defendant Interrupted the Reading of the Rights by Telling the Officer He Knew His Rights, Required Suppression of the Statements

The Fourth Department determined that defendant was entitled to a new trial with respect to the charges related to unwarned statements he made to the police.  When an officer started to read the Miranda rights to the defendant he stopped the officer by saying he knew his rights.  The defendant thereafter made several statements in the absence of any Miranda warnings:

It is well settled that “[a]n individual taken into custody by law enforcement authorities for questioning must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights’ safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination” … . The Miranda warnings “are an absolute prerequisite to interrogation’ ” … . Here, the court concluded that defendant understood his rights based on the fact that he had been given Miranda warnings before he gave his August 16, 2010 statement [re: a different, unrelated offense]. A court, however, does not ” inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given’ ” … . Defendant’s statements made on November 17, 2010 must therefore be suppressed because the Miranda warnings were not given until after defendant was interrogated… . People v Jackson, 2015 NY Slip Op 02623, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

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