You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Preservation by Objection Not Required When Defendant First Learns of Post-Release Supervision Moments Before Sentencing

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, the Third Department vacated defendant's plea to a probation violation because no mention of a period of post-release supervision was made until moments before sentencing.  The court determined there was no need to preserve the error by objection because the defendant had so little time between notification of the post-release supervision and sentencing:

…[W]hether preservation is necessary hinges upon whether the defendant “had ample opportunity to object after the initial [reference to postrelease supervision] was made and before sentence was formally imposed” … . Thus, where “the court first mention[s] postrelease supervision only moments before imposing the sentence,” thereby depriving the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to weigh his or her options at that stage of the proceeding, preservation is not required … .

Although we are mindful that the matter before us concerns a plea of guilty to a violation of probation — as opposed to a plea of guilty to a crime — the analysis employed by the Court of Appeals …is equally applicable here. As noted previously, County Court made no mention of postrelease supervision during the course of defendant's plea colloquy …, nor does the record indicate that defendant otherwise was made aware — prior to entering her plea to the probation violation — that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence … . Rather, the need to impose a period of postrelease supervision was first raised at sentencing — quite literally moments before defendant's sentence actually was imposed … . Under these circumstances, preservation was not required, and County Court's failure to apprise defendant that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence mandates reversal. People v Bolivar, 2014 NY Slip Op 02980, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

Notations Added by Judge to Verdict Sheet to Help Jurors Differentiate the Counts Did Not Violate CPL 310.20

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, with a concurring opinion, determined that the notations added to the verdict sheet by the judge to aid the jury in differentiating the counts did not violate the Criminal Procedure Law. The defendant was charged with making purchases at several different stores with forged credit cards.  The judge added store names, dates and locations to the relevant counts on the verdict sheet.  The Court of Appeals determined the notations were of the type allowed by CPL 310.20 (2).  The Court further determined that the use of a GPS tracking device on defendant’s car constituted a warrantless search.  But the search-error was deemed harmless under the facts.  With respect to the notations on the verdict sheet, the Court wrote:

As we explained in Miller “[n]othing of substance can be included [on a verdict sheet] that the statute does not authorize” (Miller, 18 NY3d at 706 [emphasis supplied]). The verdict sheet in Miller violated section 310.20 (2) because it included a legal instruction relative to burden of proof, i.e., words or terms “of substance” (id. at 706-707 [verdict sheet asked the jury if the defendant had established by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted under extreme emotional disturbance]). Verdict sheets may not be utilized to provide legal instruction to a deliberating jury; such instruction is to be provided by the trial court in its jury charge (see CPL 310.30 [stating that during deliberations “the jury may request the court for further instruction or information with respect to the law” and the court, upon notice to and in the presence of the People and the defense, “must give such requested information or instruction as the court deems proper”]). Inclusion of legal instructions on a verdict sheet runs contrary to the statute’s intended purpose of “facilitat[ing] an orderly and intelligent deliberative process” because it enhances the risk that the jurors will perceive the annotation as having special significance as opposed to merely assisting them in distinguishing among the counts.

The annotations here could not have been interpreted by the jury as being intended for any purpose other than identifying the individual stores defendant and his codefendant were alleged to have frequented or the banks relative to certain identity theft counts. Given the number of counts, coupled with the fact that the offenses occurred at different locations at different times (and, in some instances, on different dates), the trial court appropriately included the annotations so that the jury could distinguish the submitted counts. Under the circumstances, the names of the stores clearly fall within the term “complainant” delineated in the statute. People v Lewis, 2014 NY Slip Op 02969, CtApp 5-1-14

 

,

Rape-Complainant’s Mental Health Records Raised a Brady, Not a Confrontation, Issue—Trial Judge Properly Ruled that Most of the Records Would Not Be Turned Over to the Defense Because There was No Reasonable Possibility Disclosure Would Have Led to Defendant’s Acquittal

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a forceful dissent by Judge Rivera, determined the trial court had properly refused to turn over to the defense most of the complainant’s mental health records.  The 18-year-old complainant called 911 to report she had just been raped by the 40-year-old defendant.  The defendant claimed that they had consensual sex but that he struggled with the complainant after she started to run away with his pants and money. The case came down to the credibility of the defendant and the complainant.  The complainant suffered from “Bipolar, Tourettes, post-traumatic-stress disorder, [and] epilepsy.”  She had visualized the presence of dead people, had cut herself, had been violent, had attempted suicide and had made an allegation of sexual assault against her father which one record referred to as “unfounded.” She also suffered from attention deficit disorder and hypersexuality. The trial judge disclosed only a few of complainant’s mental health records.  The majority determined the mental health records raised a Brady issue, not a confrontation issue (as was argued by the defendant and the dissent):

While defendant presents the issue as one of interference with his rights of confrontation and cross-examination, we view this as essentially a Brady case (Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]; see Pennsylvania v Ritchie, 480 US 39, 56 [1987] [evaluating under Brady the question of whether confidential investigative files concerning child abuse must be disclosed to a criminal defendant]). Under Brady, a defendant is entitled to the disclosure of evidence favorable to his case “where the evidence is material” (373 US at 87). In New York, the test of materiality where, as here, the defendant has made a specific request for the evidence in question is whether there is a “reasonable possibility” that the verdict would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed … .

This case differs from the typical Brady case in that it involves confidential mental health records, and the decision to deny disclosure was made not by a prosecutor, but by a judge after an in camera review of the records sought. In such a case, the trial court has a measure of discretion in deciding whether records otherwise entitled to confidentiality should be disclosed … .

In sum, the issue here is whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding defendant’s interest in obtaining the records to be outweighed by the complainant’s interest in confidentiality; and defendant’s interest could be outweighed only if there was no reasonable possibility that the withheld materials would lead to his acquittal. Having examined those materials, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. People v McCray, 2014 NY Slip Op 02970, CtApp 5-1-14

 

,

Defendant’s Indelible Right to Counsel Did Not Attach When the Attorney for Defendant’s Husband’s Estate Communicated with the Police—The Attorney Was Unaware that Defendant Was a Suspect In Her Husband’s Death at the Time of the Communication

The Fourth Department determined a communication with the police by the attorney who represented the estate of defendant’s husband did not trigger the attachment of her indelible right to counsel (rendering a subsequent statement inadmissible).  The defendant was convicted of murdering her husband.  At the time the probate attorney communicated with the police, he identified himself as the estate’s attorney and was not aware defendant was a suspect in her husband’s death:

The evidence established that defendant was the personal representative of the estate …, and that the attorney’s representation of her was only with respect to her role as personal representative of the estate. The attorney testified that at no time did he know that defendant was a suspect in decedent’s death, which he believed to have been a suicide; that he identified himself as the attorney for decedent’s estate in his communications with the police; and that he would not have given defendant advice related to a criminal investigation because to do so would be a conflict of interest with his role as the attorney for the estate. It is well established that, although “an attorney-client relationship formed in one criminal matter may sometimes bar questioning in another matter in the absence of counsel . . . , a relationship formed in a civil matter is not entitled to the same deference” … . People v Castor, 2015 NY Slip Op 03648, 4th Dept 5-1-15

 

,

There Was Sufficient Evidence Defendant Was Responsible for a Witness’ Refusal to Testify to Allow the People to Present the Witness’ Grand Jury Testimony at Trial

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, with a concurring opinion, the Court of Appeals determined the trial court properly ruled a witness' grand jury testimony could be presented at trial because there was sufficient evidence the defendant was responsible for the witness' asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refusing to testify:

Under the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and article one, section six of the State Constitution, a criminal defendant has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him or her (see U.S. Const. Amend. VI; NY Const, art I, § 6…). The confrontation right is critical to the fairness of a trial because it “'ensur[es] the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact'” … . Given this important right, an unavailable witness's grand jury testimony, which by definition has not been subjected to confrontation, generally may not be admitted at trial on the People's direct case … . However, “where it has been shown that the defendant procured the witness's unavailability through violence, threats or chicanery,” the defendant “may not assert either the constitutional right of confrontation or the evidentiary rules against the admission of hearsay in order to prevent the admission of the witness's out-of-court declarations,” including the witness's grand jury testimony… .  People v Smart, 2014 NY Slip Op 02972, CtApp 5-1-14

 

, ,

Juvenile Delinquency Adjudications Can Not Be Considered in the Criminal History Categories of a Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI)—However the Adjudications Can Be Considered When Deciding Whether to Depart from the Recommended Risk Level

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rose, indicated its prior rulings should not be followed and determined that juvenile delinquency adjudications may not be considered under risk factors 8 and 9 (criminal history) for the purpose of assessing points in the risk assessment instrument (RAI). However the adjudications may be considered in determining whether to depart from the recommended risk level:

Relying on People v Campbell (98 AD3d 5 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 853 [2012]), defendant contended that Family Ct Act § 381.2 (1) precluded the use of the juvenile delinquency adjudication and, without the 30 points for criminal history, defendant would be presumptively classified as a risk level I sex offender. County Court, citing our previous decisions in People v Pride (37 AD3d 957 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 812 [2007]) and People v Dort (18 AD3d 23 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 885 [2005]), denied defendant’s challenge to the 30-point assessment and classified defendant as a risk level II sex offender. Defendant appeals.

We reverse. We agree with the holding of People v Campbell (supra) that the Board “exceeded its authority by adopting that portion of the [Sex Offender Registration Act] Guidelines which includes juvenile delinquency adjudications in its definition of crimes for the purpose of determining a sex offender’s criminal history” (id. at 12; see Family Ct Act § 380.1 [1]…). Contrary to the People’s argument, the fact that the points at issue in Campbell were assessed under risk factor 8 of the RAI does not require a different conclusion because both risk factor 8 and risk factor 9 fall within the criminal history category of the RAI. To the extent that our prior decisions suggest that juvenile delinquency adjudications may be considered crimes for purposes of the RAI, we note that the conflict between the Guidelines and the Family Ct Act was not raised in those cases and they should no longer be followed. Our ruling is limited, however, to precluding the use of juvenile delinquency adjudications to assess points for criminal history under the RAI, and we do not hold that the facts underlying a juvenile delinquency adjudication may not be considered when determining whether to depart from the recommended risk level … . People v Shaffer, 2015 NY Slip Op 03586, 3rd Dept 4-30-15

 

,

The Fact that One of Four Men Approached for a Level One Street Inquiry Ran Did Not Provide the Police with Reasonable Suspicion that Defendant, Who Obeyed the Police Commands, Was Involved in a Crime

The First Department determined that the police did not have sufficient cause to detain four men, including the defendant, on the street. The fact that one of the four men subsequently ran did not provide any additional justification for detaining defendant. The police had enough information about a near-by robbery only to justify a “level one” street inquiry of the four men, not detention.  While detained without sufficient cause, defendant was asked by the police to lift up his shirt, revealing a gun.  Absent “reasonable suspicion” of involvement in a crime, the defendant should not have been detained to await the show-up. Absent an indication defendant posed a danger to the police officers, the defendant should not have been asked to lift his shirt:

…[T]he group of men was in a location to which a group of robbers had been reported to have fled only minutes earlier, giving the officers an articulable reason for inquiring into why the men were in the area … . The question, then, is whether the encounter ever escalated to a point that the police would have been justified in holding the men at the scene while the complainant was transported to it.

…[R]easonable suspicion is a necessary predicate to a detention for a showup identification … . Further, a person’s flight is sufficient to create the reasonable suspicion necessary to escalate a level one or level two encounter to a level three detention, so long as other circumstances are attendant, such as a high-crime location and activity suggesting, although not alone creating, reasonable suspicion that the person fleeing the scene may be engaged in criminal conduct … . In all of the cases which discuss flight as the determining factor in creating reasonable suspicion, however, the defendant is the person who fled. Here, of course, defendant did not flee; he obeyed the officers’ direction to stop and to submit to their questioning. People v Thompson, 2015 NY Slip Op 03605 1st Dept 4-30-15

 

Defendant’s Statement Was Made In Response to the Functional Equivalent of a Question Designed to Elicit an Incriminatory Response and Should Have Been Suppressed

The Third Department determined a statement made by the defendant after he had been arrested and was being transported to the police station was not “spontaneous” (as County Court found) and should have been suppressed. At the arrest scene one of defendant’s “associates” indicated defendant might have drugs in his anal cavity.  In the police car, an officer said to the defendant that he hoped defendant did not have any more drugs on him and the defendant said he probably did.  During a subsequent search drugs were found in defendant’s anal cavity. Although defendant’s statement indicating he probably had more drugs on him should have been suppressed because it was made in response to a police statement designed to elicit an incriminating response, the drugs themselves were not subject to suppression.  The Third Department determined the search which turned up the drugs was not triggered by the statement:

The admissibility of a statement made by a defendant in custody depends on whether it was “the product of ‘express questioning or its functional equivalent'” … . The operative question is whether, in context, “the officer should have known that his statement was ‘reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from the suspect'” … . In our view, County Court erred in concluding that the inculpatory statement was admissible because it was simply a spontaneous response to a declaration by [the officer]. For a statement to be spontaneous, it must be self-generated without “inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescense, no matter how subtly employed” … . Coming on the heels of [the officer’s] explanation that defendant would be searched as part of the booking process, and having been informed by the passenger that defendant may have hidden additional drugs on his person, we find [the officer’s] statement to be the functional equivalent of a question intended to elicit an incriminating response … . Since defendant was in custody and had not been given Miranda warnings, the statement should have been suppressed as involuntary. People v George, 2015 NY Slip Op 03574, 3rd Dept 4-30-15

 

Attempted Criminal Possession of a Weapon Third Degree Is Not a Violent Felony When It is the Top Count of an Indictment—It is a Violent Felony Only If It Is a “Lesser Included” Offense

The Second Department determined defendant was improperly sentenced as a second violent felony offender.  Attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is not a violent felony when it is the top count in an indictment (as it was in this case).  It is only considered a violent felony when it is a “lesser included” offense:

In People v Dickerson (85 NY2d 870, 871-872), the Court of Appeals determined that a plea of guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, when charged in “the top count” of a superior court information, did not constitute a violent felony pursuant to Penal Law § 70.02(1)(d). Under Penal Law § 70.02(1)(d), the crime of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree constitutes a class E violent felony offense only when the defendant is convicted of such charge as “a lesser included offense . . . as defined in section 220.20 of the criminal procedure law.” CPL 220.20(1) defines a “lesser included offense” as one where the defendant pleads “to an offense of lesser grade than one charged in a count of an indictment.” “Thus, according to the plain statutory language, a class E violent felony offense is reserved for accuseds who plead guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree as a lesser included offense under an indictment charging a greater offense” (People v Dickerson, 85 NY2d at 872). Here, in 2005, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree as the sole count of a superior court information. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction of that crime, upon his plea of guilty, did not constitute a violent felony pursuant to Penal Law § 70.02 (1)(d) … . People v Millazzo, 2015 NY Slip Op 03569, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

,

Defects in On-the-Record Waiver of Appeal Not Cured by Written Waiver

The Second Department, in determining defendant’s waiver of appeal was insufficient, noted that signing a written waiver does not cure defects in the court’s on-the-record inquiry about the defendant’s understanding of the waiver:

The record fails to establish that the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . An appeal waiver is not valid unless the defendant’s understanding of the waiver is evident on the face of the record … . Here, the trial court’s statement to the defendant that he was giving up his right to appeal, followed by its inquiry as to whether his attorney had explained that right to him, was insufficient to demonstrate a valid waiver … . The defendant’s execution of a written waiver “is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal, and some acknowledgment that the defendant is voluntarily giving up that right” … . People v Little, 2015 NY Slip Op 03567, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

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