You are here: / Criminal Law

Abuse of Discretion to Deny Defendant’s Request for New Defense Counsel—Request Was Supported by Specific Legitimate Concerns and Was Joined by Defense Counsel

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined Supreme Court should not have denied defendant’s request for new counsel, which was echoed by defense counsel and supported by specific, legitimate concerns.  The conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered. The Fourth Department outlined the analytical criteria:

The determination “[w]hether counsel is substituted is within the discretion and responsibility of the trial judge . . . , and a court’s duty to consider such a motion is invoked only where a defendant makes a seemingly serious request[]” … . Thus, where a defendant makes “specific factual allegations” against defense counsel … , the court must make at least “some minimal inquiry” to determine whether the defendant’s claims are meritorious … . Upon conducting that inquiry, “counsel may be substituted only where good cause’ is shown” … .

Here, the court erred in determining that a breakdown in communication between attorney and client cannot constitute good cause for substitution of counsel. Although the mere complaint by a defendant that communications have broken down between him and his lawyer is not, by itself, good cause for a change in counsel …, where a complete breakdown has been established, substitution is required … . Here, both defendant and defense counsel agreed that they were unable to communicate, and nothing said by either of them during the court’s lengthy inquiry indicated otherwise.

We conclude that the court also erred in suggesting that any breakdown in communication was “initiated or promoted by the defendant as opposed to defense counsel.” That conclusion is not supported by the record, which shows that the breakdown in communication resulted from legitimate concerns defendant had about defense counsel’s performance. People v Gibson, 2015 NY Slip Op 02236, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

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

 

, ,

Criteria for Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence to the Grand Jury Explained (Not Met Here)

The Third Department explained the prosecutor’s obligations re: the presentation of exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. [The decision also includes good discussions the criteria re: (1) shackling defendant during pre-trial hearings, (2) the court’s discretion to deny defendant’s request to call a witness (the victim) at the Wade hearing, and (3) serious prosecutorial misconduct, which are worth reading, although reversible error was not found.]:

With respect to the issue of exculpatory evidence, “[t]he People generally enjoy wide discretion in presenting their case to the [g]rand [j]ury and are not obligated to search for evidence favorable to the defense or to present all evidence in their possession that is favorable to the accused even though such information undeniably would allow the [g]rand [j]ury to make a more informed determination. . . . [Nor] do the People have the same obligation of disclosure at the [g]rand [j]ury stage as they have at the trial stage” … . Here, the exculpatory evidence cited by defendant “bore principally upon the victim’s credibility and, as such, was more appropriately reserved for presentation to the petit jury than to the [g]rand [j]ury” … . People v Goldston, 2015 NY Slip Op 02146, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

 

Defendant Did Not Have the Right to Be Present During Discussion of Exclusion of a Sworn Juror

The Second Department determined the defendant’s absence from a conference re: whether a sworn juror was grossly unqualified to serve did not violate defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of the trial:

The defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of trial was not violated by his absence from an in camera interview with a sworn juror, conducted in the presence of the prosecutor and defense counsel, to determine whether that sworn juror was grossly unqualified to serve (see CPL 270.35[1]). A defendant’s statutory right to be present at trial (see CPL 260.20) “extends to all material stages of the trial, including ancillary proceedings in which defendant’s presence could have a substantial effect on [his or her] ability to defend against the charges'” … . A conference to determine whether a sworn juror should be excluded (see CPL 270.35) is an ancillary proceeding, at which the defendant’s presence is “only necessary where defendant has something valuable to contribute'” … .

Under the circumstances presented here, the defendant’s presence at the conference could not have had a substantial effect on his ability to defend the charges, and the defendant could not have made a valuable contribution to the conference … . People v Peoples, 2015 NY Slip Op 02143, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

, ,

Violation of Confrontation Clause Was Harmless Error

The Second Department determined the admission of hearsay DNA evidence (a report made by an analyst who did not testify), although it violated the Confrontation Clause, was harmless error because the inadmissible evidence was cumulative:

The defendant correctly contends that his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment were violated when the Supreme Court admitted a nontestifying DNA analyst’s report linking the defendant to DNA evidence recovered at the crime scene … .

“Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis” … . “Constitutional error requires reversal unless the error’s impact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt'” … . “This determination is based on a review of the entire record”… ..

Here, in addition to the erroneously admitted report, the People presented evidence directly linking the defendant to the burglary. Specifically, the nontestifying analyst’s supervisor testified that she herself analyzed the raw data from the evidence collected at the crime scene and the DNA collected from the defendant and drew her own conclusions. Thus, the erroneously admitted report was cumulative, as the expert who did testify reached that same conclusion after comparing the same raw data relied upon by the nontestifying analyst. Since there was no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted report contributed to the defendant’s conviction, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Cartagena, 2015 NY Slip Op 02136, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

,

Even Though the People Indicated They Were Not Ready for Trial After Filing a Certificate of Readiness, the Presumption the Statement of Readiness Was Accurate and Truthful When Made Was Not Rebutted/How to Interpret a Plurality Opinion by the Court of Appeals Explained

The First Department determined the People’s off-calendar statement of readiness was not illusory and, therefore, the defendant’s speedy-trial motion was properly denied. The First Department explained how it interpreted the Court of Appeals decision in People v Sibbles, 22 NY3d 1174, which included two three-judge concurrences, one by Judge Lippman and one by Judge Graffeo:

The three judge concurrence by Chief Judge Lippman “would hold that, if challenged, the People must demonstrate that some exceptional fact or circumstance arose after their declaration of readiness so as to render them presently not ready for trial” at the next court appearance after filing the certificate (22 NY3d at 1178). Chief Judge Lippman found that the People’s desire to strengthen their case did not satisfy this requirement.

The three judge concurrence by Judge Graffeo “would decide th[e] case on a narrower basis” (22 NY3d at 1179). While recognizing established precedent that the requirement of actual readiness under CPL 30.30 “will be met unless there is proof that the readiness statement did not accurately reflect the People’s position'”(id. at 1180, quoting People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 799 [1998]) and that “there is a presumption that a statement of readiness is truthful and accurate” (22 NY3d at 1180), Judge Graffeo found the statement of readiness “illusory” because “[t]he People initially declared that they were ready for trial on February 22 but within days sought copies of the injured officer’s medical records,” admitted at the next calendar call that they “were not in fact ready to proceed because they were continuing their investigation” and that they “needed to examine the medical records to decide if they would pursue introduction of the records into evidence at trial”, and then “gave no explanation for the change in circumstances between the initial statement of readiness and the[ir] subsequent admission that the[y] … were not ready to proceed without the medical records” (22 NY3d at 1181).

Following analogous precedent pertaining to plurality opinions by the United States Supreme Court, we apply the narrower approach of Judge Graffeo, which leaves intact well- settled law that a post-certificate assertion that the People are not ready does not, by itself, vitiate the previously filed certificate of readiness … . * * *

[Here], unlike, Sibblies, there is no “proof that the readiness statement did not accurately reflect the People’s position,” so as to render the prior statement of readiness illusory (Sibblies, 22 NY3d at 1180 …). Rather, defense counsel merely speculated that the certificate of readiness was illusory because the People announced that they were not ready at the next court appearance after it was filed, which is insufficient to rebut the presumption that the certificate of readiness was accurate and truthful … . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 02042, 1st Dept 3-17-15

 

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