You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Criteria for Balancing the Need for a Public Trial and First Amendment Rights (Freedom of the Press) With the Defendant’s Right to a Fair Trial Discussed in Some Detail—Here the Court’s Sealing of Some Records and Closures of the Courtroom Reflected a Proper Discretionary Balance

The First Department, in a detailed decision, determined Supreme Court had properly balanced the requirement that a criminal trial be open to the public and the defendant’s right to a fair trial.  Because the court properly used its discretion to balance the two concerns neither mandamus nor prohibition was an available remedy.  The decision is worth reading—many of the issues discussed are not noted here:

The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press a qualified right of access to criminal trials … . This right must be kept in balance with the compelling interest of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the right to privacy of prospective jurors … . The public’s right of access may be limited where there is a compelling governmental interest and closure is narrowly tailored to serve that interest … .

New York’s approach to courtroom closure is “comparable to the federal analysis” … . The press is not imbued with any special right of access, and while it possesses “the same right of access as the public,” it has no right to information about a trial that is “greater” or “superior” to that of the general public … . A ” trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity'” … . Decisions to seal or disclose records fall within the inherent power of the court to control the records of its own proceedings … . While a court must guarantee that the defendant receives a fair trial, it must do so in a manner that balances the interests of “the defendant, jurors, witnesses, attorneys and the public at large” … . Matter of Daily News, L.P. v Wiley, 2015 NY Slip Op 02010, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

,

Failure to Follow Statutory Risk-Level-Determination Procedure Violated Defendant’s Due Process Rights

The Second Department determined that ignoring the statutory SORA risk-level-determination procedure violated defendant’s due process rights. The court exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction in the absence of an objection by the defendant:

Supreme Court sentenced the defendant to two one-year terms of incarceration, without any probation supervision. The court conducted the risk assessment hearing and made its risk level determination immediately prior to imposing sentence, and did so using a risk level assessment instrument prepared by the District Attorney’s office. This procedure violated SORA and deprived the defendant of his right to due process … . Pursuant to the SORA statutory scheme, a risk level determination should not have been made until 30 days before the defendant’s release from custody (see Correction Law § 168-n[2]…). The court’s determination should have been preceded by the Board’s risk level recommendation, and the defendant should have been notified of the opportunity to submit to the Board any information that he believed was relevant for its review … . People v Grabowski, 2015 NY Slip Op 01930, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Search of Backpack Which Was No Longer In Defendant’s Possession, After Defendant Had Been Handcuffed, Justified by Exigent Circumstances

In finding the suppression motion was properly denied. The Second Department explained the law which justified the pre-arrest detention of the defendant and the search of defendant’s backpack after defendant was handcuffed. The officer received a report of a shooting at a residence. The officer knew the defendant lived at the residence and saw blood on defendant’s clothes.  The defendant was handcuffed and his backpack was placed on a car about three feet away.  After the defendant was handcuffed he told the officer his brother had been shot and the guns were in the backpack.  At that point the officer had probable cause to arrest for criminal possession of a weapon and could search the backpack incident to arrest due to exigent circumstances:

Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence recovered incident to his arrest. “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” … . “Under the State Constitution, an individual’s right of privacy in his or her effects dictates that a warrantless search incident to arrest be deemed unreasonable unless justified by the presence of exigent circumstances” … . For “compelling reasons,” including the safety of the officers or the public, “a search not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest’ may be conducted even though the arrested person has been subdued and his closed container is within the exclusive control of the police” … . People v Alvarado, 2015 NY Slip Op 01955, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Defendant’s Counsel Took a Position Adverse to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Guilty Plea—Court Should Have Appointed New Counsel Before Hearing the Motion

The Second Department determined defendant should be appointed new counsel because his original counsel took a position adverse to the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea:

Prior to the imposition of sentence upon the defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, the defendant moved to withdraw his plea of guilty to that charge on the ground that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. At sentencing, assigned counsel stated that the defendant’s plea was validly entered, and denied certain factual allegations raised by the defendant.

The defendant’s right to counsel was adversely affected when his attorney took a position adverse to his … . The Supreme Court should have assigned a different attorney to represent the defendant before it determined the motion … . People v Armstead,2015 NY Slip Op 01956, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Police Were Not Justified In Entering the Curtilage of Defendant’s Home (By Climbing a Fence) After Defendant Ignored the Officers’ Command to “Stop”

The Second Department determined evidence seized after officers climbed a fence to gain access to defendant’s property was properly suppressed. The officers had enough information to approach the defendant, who was in his yard, to request information, but did not have sufficient information to justify entering defendant’s property after defendant dropped a bag and went into his house, ignoring the officers’ request to stop:

The curtilage of the home, defined as the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home or the area that is related to the intimate activities of the home—is part of the home itself … . The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant’s driveway and front yard, which were completely fenced-in and located in close proximity to his home, were within the curtilage of his home. The defendant manifested his expectation of privacy and that expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable … . Further, while the officers had an objective, credible reason to approach the defendant to request information … , the defendant’s conduct of dropping the bag, which produced “a heavy thud or a clank,” and ignoring the officer’s request to stop did not escalate the encounter to justify pursuit … . People v Morris, 2015 NY Slip Op 01967, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Denial of Guilt to Department of Probation (DOP) Was Not a Violation of a Condition that Defendant Cooperate With the DOP

The Second Department determined defendant’s denial of guilt to the Department of Probation (DOP) prior to sentencing was not a violation of a condition that he cooperate with the DOP.  The sentencing court therefore was not justified in imposing an enhanced sentence:

As a condition of the court’s promised sentence, the defendant agreed (1) to cooperate with the Department of Probation (hereinafter the DOP), (2) to appear on any scheduled court dates, and (3) to remain arrest free. The defendant appeared for his interview with the DOP and answered all of the questions asked, but in doing so, he also denied his guilt. However, he did not express any intention to withdraw his plea of guilty. At sentencing, the defendant contended that he did not deny his guilt to the DOP. Nonetheless, the court found that the defendant violated the “cooperation” condition by lying to the DOP. The court then imposed an enhanced sentence without first giving the defendant an opportunity to ask to withdraw his plea of guilty.

Although the violation of an explicit and objective plea condition that was accepted by the defendant can result in the imposition of an enhanced sentence …, here, the defendant’s denial of his guilt to the DOP was not a violation of the condition that he cooperate with the DOP … . While a court is free to impose a condition requiring a defendant not to deny his or her guilt when interviewed by the DOP, the Supreme Court in the instant matter did not impose such a condition … . Accordingly, it erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based on its conclusion that the defendant violated a condition of the plea of guilty… . People v Pianaforte, 2015 NY Slip Op 01969, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

,

Child’s Disclosure of Sexual Abuse One Year After Abuse Ended Properly Admitted Under the “Prompt Outcry” Exception to the Hearsay Rule

The Second Department determined a child’s disclosure of sexual assault one year after the abuse ended was properly admitted under the “prompt outcry” exception to the hearsay rule:

Evidence that a sexual assault victim promptly complained about the incident is admissible to corroborate the allegation that an assault took place … . “An outcry is prompt if made at the first suitable opportunity’ …, and is a relative concept dependent on the facts’ … . “There can be no iron rule on the subject. The law expects and requires that it should be prompt, but there is and can be no particular time specified” … . “[W]hat might qualify as prompt in one case might not in another” … .

Here, the trial court permitted testimony concerning the victim’s first “outcry” to a friend which occurred approximately one year after the abuse had ended … . Under all of the circumstances of this case, including the victim’s young age, and the fact that she lived with the defendant during the relevant period, the trial court properly admitted evidence of the victim’s outcry to her friend … . People v Caban, 2015 NY Slip Op 01959, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Delay In Coming Forward With Defendant’s Alibi Was a Proper Subject of Cross-Examination After Foundational Requirements Were Met

The Second Department determined defendant’s girlfriend was properly cross-examined about her delay in coming forward with defendant’s alibi.  The prosecutor laid the proper foundation for the cross-examination:

…[T]he People properly elicited testimony from his girlfriend during cross-examination regarding her delay in coming forward to the authorities with certain exculpatory information. Before a defense witness may be cross-examined regarding his or her failure to come forward with exculpatory information at an earlier date, certain foundational requirements must first be met … . Here, the prosecutor laid the necessary foundation prior to cross-examining the defendant’s girlfriend about her apparent delay in informing law enforcement authorities of the defendant’s alibi. The record indicates that, during a bench conference, it was ascertained that the defendant’s girlfriend had not refrained from speaking to authorities under the advice of defense counsel. Moreover, the court instructed the jury that the defendant’s girlfriend had no obligation to volunteer exculpatory information to law enforcement authorities. Under these circumstances, the People properly elicited evidence during the cross-examination of the defendant’s girlfriend that she delayed in contacting the authorities with exculpatory evidence … . People v Webster, 2015 NY Slip Op 01974, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Rebuttal Evidence Re: a Defense that Was Not Asserted Should Not Have Been Allowed (Harmless Error)/Partial Closure of Courtroom During Testimony of Undercover Officers Proper

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that, although Supreme Court erred when it allowed the prosecution to reopen its case to present rebuttal evidence, the error was harmless in this bench trial. Defense counsel had mentioned an agency defense to the drug-sale charge, but then explained that the only defense raised at trial was defendant’s complete noninvolvement. Under those circumstances evidence rebutting the agency defense, which was never asserted, should not have been allowed. The First Department also held that Supreme Court properly closed the courtroom during the testimony of undercover officers.  With regard to the partial closure of the courtroom, the First Department wrote:

The Hinton hearing court, which closed the courtroom for the testimony of two undercover officers and which offered to permit family members or other persons designated by defendant to enter, properly exercised its discretion in rejecting defense counsel’s proposal that a court officer screen members of the general public who sought to enter during the testimony. The court concluded that this suggestion would have been impracticable because there was no additional court officer available to be posted outside the courtroom, and because in any event the officer would frequently have to interrupt the testimony to report the presence of persons seeking to enter. Therefore, under the circumstances presented, defendant’s proposal was not a “reasonable alternative[] to closing the proceeding” … . People v Mallard, 2015 NY Slip Op 01882, 1st Dept 3-10-15

 

,

Criteria for (Upward) Departure from the Risk Level Assessed by the Board of Sex Offenders Explained

The First Department determined the SORA court properly departed from the recommendation by the Board of Sex Offenders (the Board) that defendant be assessed a level one sex offender.  The defendant had communicated in an Internet chat room with a police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl. Upward departure (to level two) was deemed warranted because, although there was no actual victim, the defendant’s behavior indicated he posed a risk to young girls and might re-offend. The court explained when departure from the Board’s recommendation is warranted:

The court concluded that the Board’s allocation to defendant of risk level one was inadequate and determined him to be a risk level two. The court stated, in relevant part:

“I don’t think this level would be appropriate for somebody who might re-engage in this conduct because the next person that he’s in contact with could very well be a real child and that person would be victimized, and I don’t think that this qualifies under the lowest level. This is not like one single, you know, inadvertent contact with somebody. This is a relationship that he attempted to develop, and as if over the period of days he got more and more explicit, counsel, indicated to her what he wanted to do, all the while thinking she’s a 13 year-old girl. I don’t believe that this risk score or the Board’s recommendation accurately reflects even the risk of his re-offending, counsel, or the harm that would be caused if he did re-offend, which are the two factors that the court is supposed to weigh in assessing his risk.” …

Although the Board’s assessment of a risk level is presumed to be correct, the reviewing court is to consider it as only a recommendation from which it, as an exercise of its discretion, can depart if there is clear and convincing evidence that a departure is warranted (…Correction Law 168-n[3]). The court’s analysis is not limited to tallying up points it believes the Board did not assess; rather, the court can adjust the risk level upwards if it determines that there are “aggravating factors not adequately accounted for in the [RAI]” … . This rule derives from the Board’s “Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary,” (the Guidelines), which note that “an objective instrument, no matter how well designed, will not fully capture the nuances of every case. Not to allow for departures would, therefore, deprive the Board or a court of the ability to exercise sound judgment and to apply its expertise to the offender” … . Conversely, as noted, the Board’s determinations are presumptive, and not to be routinely overturned … .  People v Macchia, 2015 NY Slip Op 01883, 1st Dept 3-10-15

 

 

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