You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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

 

,

Appeal Waiver Invalid/Court Erroneously Told Defendant His Request for a Hearing on the Persistent Violent Felony Offender Tolling Calculations Violated the Plea Agreement—Matter Remitted for a Hearing

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and defendant was entitled to a hearing on the time-calculations associated with the “persistent violent felony offender” status.  The ten-year period between the current felony and the prior felony is tolled by any periods of incarceration.  Defendant objected to the tolling calculations made by County Court. County Court effectively coerced defendant to agree to its tolling calculations by erroneously telling defendant his request for a hearing violated the plea agreement:

…[T]he waiver of the right to appeal is invalid inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that defendant understood that the waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty … . We further agree with defendant that this case should be remitted for a hearing on the issue whether he is a persistent violent felony offender. A persistent violent felony offender is one who is convicted of a violent felony offense after having previously been subjected to two or more predicate violent felony convictions (see § 70.08 [1] [a]). The sentence upon the predicate violent felony convictions “must have been imposed not more than ten years before commission of the felony of which the defendant presently stands convicted” (§ 70.04 [1] [b] [iv]). However, “[i]n calculating the ten year period . . . , any period of time during which the person was incarcerated for any reason between the time of commission of the previous felony and the time of commission of the present felony shall be excluded and such ten year period shall be extended by a period or periods equal to the time served under such incarceration” (§ 70.04 [1] [b] [v]).

Here, defendant admitted that he was convicted of two prior violent felonies, but objected to the tolling periods that were computed by County Court pursuant to Penal Law § 70.04 (1) (b) (v) and requested a hearing. After some discussion with the court, defendant conceded that the court’s computations were correct, essentially waiving the necessity for a hearing. …[H]is waiver of the hearing was not effective because it was the product of impermissible coercion by the court. The court indicated that it could consider defendant’s request for a hearing to be a violation of the plea agreement, but that was not accurate. “While [the court] did advise defendant during the plea hearing that he was going to be sentenced as a [persistent violent] felony offender, it never specifically instructed him that admitting such [persistent violent] felony offender status was a condition of the plea agreement and that his failure to do so would result in a more severe sentence” … . People v Vanhooser, 2015 NY Slip Op 02640, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

,

Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Present Expert Opinion-Evidence About the Reliability of Eyewitness Identification

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant should have been allowed to present expert evidence about the reliability of eyewitness identifications.  The court explained the analytical criteria:

“Because mistaken eyewitness identifications play a significant role in many wrongful convictions, and expert testimony on the subject of eyewitness recognition memory can educate a jury concerning the circumstances in which an eyewitness is more likely to make such mistakes, courts are encouraged . . . in appropriate cases’ to grant defendants’ motions to admit expert testimony on this subject” … , the Court of Appeals established a two-stage inquiry for considering a motion to admit expert testimony on eyewitness identification … . “The first stage is deciding whether the case turns on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and there is little or no corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crime’ … . If the trial court finds itself with such a case, then it must proceed to the second stage, which involves the application of four factors. The court must decide whether the proposed testimony is (1) relevant to the witness’s identification of defendant, (2) based on principles that are generally accepted within the relevant scientific community, (3) proffered by a qualified expert and (4) on a topic beyond the ken of the average juror’ … . If, on the other hand, sufficient evidence corroborates an eyewitness’s identification of the defendant, then there is no obligation on the part of the trial court to proceed to the second stage of analysis, because testimony concerning eyewitness identifications is unnecessary” … .

Here, the People concede that this case hinges upon the accuracy of the eyewitness’s identification of defendant, and we agree with defendant that there was little or no corroborating evidence connecting him to the crime … . People v McCullough, 2015 NY Slip Op 02589, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

,

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

 

,

Insufficient Evidence Defendant “Caused” the Victim’s Death within the Meaning of the Felony Murder Statute—The Victim, Who Was Assaulted by the Defendant, Died of a Heart Attack

The Fourth Department determined there was insufficient evidence to support defendant’s felony murder conviction.  Defendant assaulted the victim during a burglary/robbery.  The victim, who was obese and had heart disease, suffered a fatal heart attack. The Fourth Department held that the People did not present sufficient evidence the defendant caused the victim’s death within the meaning of the felony murder statute:

A person is guilty of felony murder when, during the commission or attempted commission of an enumerated felony, either the defendant or an accomplice “causes the death of a person other than one of the participants” (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). A person “causes the death” of another person “when the . . . culpable act is a sufficiently direct cause’ of the death so that the fatal result was reasonably foreseeable” … . Such a culpable act is a sufficiently direct cause of death when it is “an actual contributory cause of death, in the sense that [it] forged a link in the chain of causes which actually brought about the death’ ” … . “An obscure or a merely probable connection between an assault and death will, as in every case of alleged crime, require acquittal of the charge of any degree of homicide” … .

Here, we conclude that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was reasonably foreseeable that defendant’s actions, i.e., unlawfully entering the victim’s apartment and assaulting him, would cause the victim’s death. As noted, the victim died of a heart attack, and the injuries inflicted upon him by defendant were not life threatening. Indeed, the most serious injury inflicted was a fractured jaw. Although the Chief Medical Examiner testified for the People at trial that defendant caused the victim’s death, she explained that her opinion in that regard was based on her assertion that, “but for” defendant’s actions, the victim would not have died of a heart attack. As the court properly instructed the jury, however, “more than but for’ causation [is] required” to establish felony murder … . Notably, the Chief Medical Examiner did not testify that defendant’s culpable act was a direct cause of the death or that the fatal result was reasonably foreseeable. We thus conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant committed felony murder, as charged in counts one and two of the indictment, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. People v Davis, 2015 NY Slip Op 02628, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

,

Whether Arresting Officers Had Reasonable Suspicion to Stop and Detain Is a Mixed Question of Law and Fact Which Cannot Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals, over a strong dissent, determined it did not have jurisdiction to consider whether the police had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and detention of the defendant, a mixed question of law and fact:

Whether the circumstances of a particular case rise to the level of reasonable suspicion presents a mixed question of law and fact … . Because the Appellate Division’s reversals were thus not “on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]), these appeals are not authorized to be taken.

While acknowledging that “determinations as to reasonable suspicion typically present a mixed question of law and fact,” the dissent cites People v McRay (51 NY2d 594 [1980]) for the proposition that these cases instead involve a straight-up question of law — namely, “the minimum showing necessary to establish reasonable suspicion” … . In McRay, though, the Appellate Division reversed the suppression court on the ground that the People’s proof was insufficient as a matter of law to support probable cause to arrest (id. at 605). When we disagreed and reversed, we therefore remitted to the Appellate Division for factual review, emphasizing that an inference of probable cause was permitted, but not required, on the facts established (id. at 605, 606). Here, by contrast, the Appellate Division reversed the suppression court because, when exercising its independent fact-finding powers, it drew a different inference from the established facts, thus deciding a mixed question of law and fact. The dissenting Judge strongly disagrees with the Appellate Division. But the views of individual Judges of this Court on the merits of defendants’ suppression motions are beside the point because the Criminal Procedure Law simply does not vest us with jurisdiction to entertain these appeals… . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 02552, CtApp 3-26-15

 

Defendant’s Inability to Participate in the Prison Sex Offender Treatment Program Based Upon His Disciplinary Record Should Not Have Been Deemed a “Refusal” to Participate in the Program

The Court of Appeals determined Supreme Court erred when it assessed points against the defendant in a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) proceeding for “refusal to participate” in a prison sex offender treatment program.  Defendant was not eligible for participation in the treatment program because of his disciplinary record.  He did not “refuse” to participate:

Whether a defendant’s prison disciplinary violations which prevent him or her from attending treatment can trigger an assessment of points under risk factor 12 has not been addressed by this Court. We hold that defendant’s inability to participate in sex offender treatment due to his disciplinary violations was not tantamount to a refusal to participate in treatment under the SORA Guidelines. Refusal contemplates an intentional explicit rejection of what is being offered. There is no indication here that defendant explicitly refused treatment. Conduct that places a defendant in a position where he or she could not receive treatment is not equal to refusal to participate in treatment. Inferring refusal from a defendant’s disciplinary record is not supported by the Guidelines, which state that points should be assessed where a defendant refuses treatment or is expelled from treatment. People v Ford, 2015 NY Slip Op 02554, CtApp 3-26-15

 

,

Misinformation from Defense Counsel, Prosecutor and Judge Re: Defendant’s Eligibility for Shock Incarceration Warranted Vacation of Guilty Plea In Spite of Appeal Waiver/Overnight Guest Has Standing to Contest Search of Residence

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that misinformation from the judge, prosecutor and defense counsel about defendant’s eligibility for the shock incarceration program justified the vacation his guilty plea, despite an appeal waiver. In addition, the court determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether he had standing to contest the search of another’s mobile home.  The owner of the mobile home (Orrego) had supplied an affidavit stating defendant was an overnight guest, a status the provided standing to contest the search:

Given the mistake by all involved in the plea proceeding, and counsel’s failure to provide meaningful representation on this issue, we agree with defendant’s contention that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. * * *

… [A] trial court is not obligated to conduct a suppression hearing “unless the accused alleges facts that, if true, demonstrate standing to challenge the search or seizure” … . Pertinent here, “an overnight guest has an expectation of privacy in the host’s home” and, thus, standing to contest a search of that home … . In our view, the facts set forth in the Orrego affidavit necessitated, at a minimum, that a hearing be held to determine whether defendant had standing to contest the search… . People v Wiggins, 2015 NY Slip Op 02517, 3rd Dept 3-26-15

 

,

Nervous and Uncooperative Actions by Defendant Justified Search of Area Inside Defendant’s Car After Defendant Was Out of the Car and Had Been Frisked

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the nervous and uncooperative actions of the defendant justified the warrantless search of a bag inside the car defendant was driving, after defendant was outside the car and had been frisked:

The testimony supports the trial court’s finding that the facts available to the officers, including defendant’s furtive behavior, suspicious actions in looking into the back seat on multiple occasions and refusal to follow the officers’ legitimate directions, went beyond mere nervousness. Rather, defendant’s actions both inside and outside of the vehicle created a “perceptible risk” and supported a reasonable conclusion that a weapon that posed an actual and specific danger to their safety was secreted in the area behind the front passenger seat, which justified the limited search of that area, even after defendant had been removed from the car and frisked … . People v Hardee, 2015 NY Slip Op 02573, 1st Dept 3-26-15

 

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