You are here: / Criminal Law

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

 

,

Criteria for Emergency Exception to the Warrant Requirement (Re: Entry of an Apartment) Not Met

The Second Department determined the police should not have entered and apartment without a warrant because the emergency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply.  The landlord had simply indicated a woman was in the apartment without any indication the woman was in distress:

Under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, the police may make a warrantless entry into a protected area if (1) they have reasonable grounds to believe that there was an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property; (2) the search was not primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there was some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched … . The United States Supreme Court has determined that the second prong, regarding the subjective intent of the police, is no longer relevant under the Fourth Amendment (see Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US 398, 404-405). However, we need not decide whether the second prong of Mitchell is still viable under the New York Constitution because we conclude that the People did not satisfy the first prong of Mitchell … . The mere sound of unspecified banging and a woman’s voice coming from the upstairs apartment was insufficient to show that there was an emergency at hand requiring the immediate assistance of the police in order to protect life or property … . The owner did not say that she heard the woman screaming or crying for help, and the officers did not observe any indicia of an emergency … . People v Hammett, 2015 NY Slip Op 02498, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

,

Observing a “Bulge” Did Not Justify Forcible Detention

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding that the police officer’s observation of a bulge did not justify forcible detention:

…[T]he arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant had committed or was about to commit a crime … . The officer briefly observed what he initially characterized only as a “bulge” on the right side of the defendant’s pants. Despite this initial characterization, the officer later testified that he thought he had observed a holster, which turned out to be a buckle attached to the right side of the defendant’s pants. This observation, without more, was not sufficient to permit the officer to forcibly detain the defendant … . Accordingly, the physical evidence recovered from the defendant as a consequence of the unlawful detention and arrest should have been suppressed… . People v Severino, 2015 NY Slip Op 02509, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

Escalating Intrusiveness of Police-Encounter with Defendant Justified Under DeBour Criteria—Criteria Explained and Applied

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the arresting officer, Schwizer, properly escalated the intrusiveness of his encounter with the defendant (under the DeBour criteria) based upon the actions of the defendant:

“On a motion to suppress physical evidence, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of police conduct in the first instance” …, the Court of Appeals established a graduated four-level test for evaluating the propriety of police encounters when a police officer is acting in a law enforcement capacity … . The first level 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 … . The second level, known as the common-law right of inquiry, requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, and permits a somewhat greater intrusion … . The third level permits a police officer to forcibly stop and detain an individual. Such a detention, however, is not permitted unless there is a reasonable suspicion that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime … . The fourth level authorizes an arrest based on probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime … .

“Encounters between citizens and the police in public places are of an endless variety with no two being precisely alike” … . Here, Schwizer properly exercised his common-law right of inquiry when he initially encountered the defendant, as the defendant matched the general description of a man with a gun at the subject location … .

At this stage in the encounter, absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, Schwizer could not forcibly detain the defendant … . However, during his common-law right of inquiry, Schwizer was permitted to ask the defendant to show or raise his hands as a self-protective measure … .

The defendant’s failure to comply with Schwizer’s request to show his hands, coupled with the nature of the report, and the presence of the defendant’s hands in his waist area, escalated the encounter and justified Schwizer’s conduct in grabbing the defendant’s hands as a self-protective measure … . Once Schwizer felt the firearm in the defendant’s waist area, he was furnished with reasonable suspicion … . People v Abdul-Mateen, 2015 NY Slip Op 02489, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

,

Motion to Vacate Conviction Based Upon Victim’s Recantation Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court erred when it denied defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction without a hearing.  The motion was primarily based upon the victim’s, defendant’s daughter’s, recantation of her rape allegations:

In her affidavit, the victim, who was the sole witness to give testimony at trial with respect to the crimes, averred that she wanted to live with her maternal grandmother. In order to effectuate that move, her maternal grandmother advised her to accuse defendant of having sexually assaulted her. The victim averred that she did not care about defendant at the time and, therefore, she agreed to accuse defendant of sexually assaulting her. She further averred that, since the trial, she had reconnected with her paternal grandmother and had seen how the latter was suffering because defendant was in prison. Witnessing that suffering resolved her to tell the truth. Although the court found the victim’s recantation to be inherently unbelievable or unreliable, we conclude that, based on the totality of the circumstances, such a finding was unwarranted in the absence of a hearing … .

The victim’s trial testimony that defendant had sexually assaulted her was crucial to the prosecution’s case. Her subsequent averments that she was encouraged by her maternal grandmother to accuse defendant of crimes so that she could live with her maternal grandmother indicate that she had a motive to lie at trial. We therefore conclude that the victim’s trial testimony, if false, was extremely prejudicial to defendant inasmuch as, without that testimony, there would have been no basis for the jury to convict defendant … . Under those circumstances, the court’s denial without a hearing of that branch of defendant’s motion based on the victim’s recantation was an improvident exercise of discretion … . People v Martinez, 2015 NY Slip Op 02286, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

Failure to Inform Defendant of the Period of Postrelease Supervision Required Reversal in the Absence of an Objection

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s conviction must be reversed because he was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision (PRS) at the time of the plea, and he could not be expected to object because he was not informed of the PRS until the end of the sentencing hearing:

…[D]efendant was not required to preserve for our review his challenge to the imposition of PRS under these circumstances. “A defendant cannot be expected to object to a constitutional deprivation of which [he] is unaware . . . [W]here the defendant was only notified of the PRS term at the end of the sentencing hearing, the defendant can hardly be expected to move to withdraw [the] plea on a ground of which [he or she] has no knowledge’ . . . And, in that circumstance, the failure to seek to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment does not preclude appellate review of the due process claim” … . Furthermore, “[b]ecause a defendant pleading guilty to a determinate sentence must be aware of the [PRS] component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action, the failure of a court to advise of postrelease supervision requires reversal of the conviction” (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245). “[T]he record does not make clear, as required by Catu, that at the time defendant took his plea, he was aware that the terms of the court’s promised sentence included a period of PRS” because only the term of incarceration of 20 years was stated on the record … . While a term of PRS was mentioned earlier in the plea negotiations, it is undisputed that there was no mention of PRS at the plea proceeding and, based on our review of the record, we conclude that defendant was not “advised of what the sentence would be, including its PRS term, at the outset of the sentencing proceeding” … . People v Rives, 2015 NY Slip Op 02316, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

Court’s Failure to Elicit Unequivocal Declarations Jurors Could Set Aside their Biases Required Reversal

The Fourth Department determined the court’s failure to elicit an unequivocal declaration jurors could set aside their bias and render an impartial verdict required reversal:

It is well established that “[p]rospective jurors who make statements that cast serious doubt on their ability to render an impartial verdict, and who have given less-than-unequivocal assurances of impartiality, must be excused” … . While no “particular expurgatory oath or talismanic’ words [are required,] . . . [prospective] jurors must clearly express that any prior experiences or opinions that reveal the potential for bias will not prevent them from reaching an impartial verdict” … . During voir dire, the statements of three prospective jurors with respect to the credibility of the testimony of police officers or bias in favor of the police cast serious doubt on their ability to render an impartial verdict …, and those prospective jurors failed to provide “unequivocal assurance that they [could] set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” … . Contrary to the court’s conclusion, we conclude that the nodding by these three prospective jurors as part of a group of prospective jurors who were “all nodding affirmatively in regard to the statement [of another prospective juror]” was “insufficient to constitute such an unequivocal declaration”… . People v Strassner, 2015 NY Slip Op 02342, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

Appeal Waiver Did Not Encompass Youthful Offender Status/Defendant Should Have Been Adjudicated a Youthful Offender

The Fourth Department determined the defendant did not waive his right to appeal the court’s failure to adjudicate him a youthful offender and further determined defendant should be so adjudicated:

… [T]he waiver [of appeal] does not encompass defendant’s contention regarding the denial of his request for youthful offender status, inasmuch as “[n]o mention of youthful offender status was made before defendant waived his right to appeal during the plea colloquy” … .

We agree with defendant that he should have been afforded youthful offender status. Defendant was 16 years old at the time of the offense and committed the offense when he and his two friends were walking to a park, saw a vehicle with the keys in the ignition, and wondered what it would be like to steal the vehicle. Defendant expressed remorse for his actions, which we conclude were the actions of an impulsive youth rather than a hardened criminal (see People v Drayton, 39 NY2d 580, 584, rearg denied 39 NY2d 1058). Thus, under the circumstances, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by adjudicating defendant a youthful offender … . People v Angel T.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 02296, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

References to Defendant’s Prior Bad Acts in a Recorded Phone Call Were Not Inextricably Intertwined with Admissible Statements and Should Have Been Redacted—Conviction Reversed

The Fourth Department determined the inadmissible statements about defendant’s prior bad acts were not inextricably intertwined with the admissible portions of a recorded phone call.  The failure to redact the references to prior bad acts required reversal:

County Court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of prior bad acts of sexual abuse against the victim’s mother and another woman. With the assistance of the police, the victim’s mother recorded a telephone conversation between herself and defendant, and she made repeated references to the prior bad acts throughout the conversation in her attempt to have defendant admit to sexually abusing the victim. We conclude that the court erred in determining that the references to the prior bad acts were admissible because they were inextricably interwoven with the allegations against the victim. In the context of a recorded call, when references to prior bad acts in the conversation are “inextricably interwoven with the crime charged in the indictment,” the entire conversation “may be received in evidence . . . where . . . the value of the evidence clearly outweighs any possible prejudice” … . ” To be inextricably interwoven . . . the evidence must be explanatory of the acts done or words used in the otherwise admissible part of the evidence’ ” … . Here, we conclude that the disputed references were not explanatory of the rest of the conversation. The statements regarding defendant’s prior bad acts were numerous, but they could have been redacted from the transcript of the recorded call without making the statements regarding the victim incomprehensible … . In other words, the statements concerning the victim are “clearly understandable” by themselves and are “not dependent upon” the statements concerning defendant’s prior bad acts … . We further conclude that the prejudicial effect of those numerous references to the prior bad acts outweighed any probative value, and the references therefore should have been redacted … . People v Gibbs, 2015 NY Slip Op 02362, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

Actus Reus for Burglary and Murder Not the Same—Consecutive Sentences Valid

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the defendant was properly sentenced to consecutive terms for burglary and murder.  The defendant broke into the victim’s home, dragged her downstairs and murdered her.  The court held that the actus reus for the burglary was completed before the murder:

Defendant was convicted of burglary for unlawfully entering the victim’s dwelling, with the aggravating factors of causing physical injury to the victim (§ 140.30 [2]), and using or threatening the immediate use of a dangerous instrument (§ 140.30 [3]), i.e., a butcher knife. Defendant was charged with intentionally causing the victim’s death by repeatedly stabbing her with a butcher knife. It is well established that, in considering whether sentences must run concurrently under Penal Law § 70.25 (2), “the court must determine whether the [actus reus] element is, by definition, the same for both offenses (under the first prong of the statute), or if the [actus reus] for one offense is, by definition, a material element of the second offense (under the second prong)” … . “[W]hen the actus reus is a single inseparable act that violates more than one statute, single punishment must be imposed” … . Although the actus reus elements of the burglary counts and the murder count overlap under the facts presented here, we nevertheless conclude that the People “establish[ed] the legality of consecutive sentencing by showing that the acts or omissions’ committed by defendant were separate and distinct acts” … . The evidence established that, after defendant entered the apartment through a window that he smashed with a cinder block, he dragged the victim from her bed and down the stairs to the living room, where he killed her. People v Brahney, 2015 NY Slip Op 02227, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

 

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