You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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

 

,

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

 

,

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

 

 

,

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

 

“Attempted Felony Assault” Charge Jurisdictionally Defective

The Third Department determined the “attempted felony assault” charge in the indictment was jurisdictionally defective because there can be no attempt to commit a crime which makes the causing of a certain result criminal even though wholly unintended:

We do find that the conviction for attempted assault in the first degree cannot stand. Defendant was charged under the theory that, during the course of the kidnapping, he attempted to cause serious physical injury when he choked the victim a second time after she made an abortive effort to get help (see Penal Law § 120.10 [4]). An attempt to commit a crime requires that a person, “with intent to commit a crime, . . . engages in conduct which tends to effect the commission of such crime” (Penal Law § 110.00). In contrast, felony assault punishes a felon for the actual consequences of his or her actions, and “there can be no attempt to commit a crime which makes the causing of a certain result criminal even though wholly unintended” … . Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that defendant did not advance this specific issue in his appellate brief, the count of the indictment charging him with attempted felony assault is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed … . People v Mccann, 2015 NY Slip Op 01830, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

,

Proof at Trial Did Not Sufficiently Pinpoint Time of the Alleged Sexual Offenses—Convictions Vacated

The Second Department determined the proof at trial did not sufficiently pinpoint the time of the alleged sexual offenses.  The offenses were alleged at trial to have been committed within a four-year time period for one victim and within a one-year time period for another.  The related convictions were vacated:

Here, numerous counts of the consolidated indictment charged various acts of criminal sexual act (see Penal Law § 130.45[1]) and sexual abuse (see Penal Law §§ 130.55, 130.60), which involved several single acts. These acts spanned a time period of at least four years with respect to Gabrielle, and approximately one year with respect to Angela. In an effort to specify a time period that was not unreasonably excessive, the District Attorney drafted the indictment to divide these time periods mostly into two-month intervals. Although the indictment, on its face, may have been sufficient, the trial testimony revealed that the complainants lacked any ability “to particularize the date and time of the alleged . . . offense[s]” …, and that there was no real basis in fact for the intervals alleged with respect to these counts … . Thus, “[t]he mere fact that the District Attorney artfully drafted the indictment by arbitrarily dividing” those otherwise excessive time periods into two-month intervals despite the absence of any basis in fact, “cannot detract from the conclusion that the time periods” with respect to these single-act crimes “were unreasonable” under the circumstances here … . Under the circumstances of this case, despite the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for appellate review, we reach the issue in the interest of justice, and we vacate the defendant’s convictions of criminal sexual act in the second degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, and sexual abuse in the third degree … . People v Atta, 2015 NY Slip Op 01809, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

Under a Batson Analysis, the Prosecutor’s Peremptory Challenges to Two Black Jurors Were “Pretextual” Requiring Reversal

The Second Department determined the reasons proffered by the prosecutor for the peremptory challenge of two black jurors were “pretextual” under a Batson analysis, requiring reversal.  With regard to one of the two pretextual challenges, the court wrote:

A new trial is necessary because the prosecutor exercised her peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79) as to two black prospective jurors. In Batson, the United States Supreme Court formulated a three-step test to assess whether peremptory challenges have been used to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race, gender, or other protected categories … . In step one, the moving party must make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by “showing that the facts and circumstances of the voir dire raise an inference that the other party excused one or more jurors for an impermissible reason” … . If the moving party makes a prima facie showing, the inquiry proceeds to step two, and the burden shifts to the adversary to provide a facially neutral explanation for the challenge. If the nonmoving party “offers facially neutral reasons supporting the challenge, the inference of discrimination is overcome” … . Once facially neutral reasons are provided, the inquiry proceeds to step three, and the burden shifts back to the moving party to prove purposeful discrimination, and ” the trial court must determine whether the proffered reasons are pretextual'” …, including whether the reasons apply to the facts of the case, and whether the reasons were applied to only a particular class of jurors and not to others… . * * *

With respect to the first prospective juror, the prosecutor employed a peremptory challenge to strike him as a juror because of a concern that his position as a church deacon would make it difficult for him to sit in judgment of another individual. Although the prospective juror indicated during voir dire that his position as a church deacon would not affect his decision making, the prosecutor maintained that it was “just [his] feeling that it may be difficult having [someone in] that position to then sit in judgment of someone.”

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the facially race-neutral reason advanced by the prosecutor for employing a peremptory challenge was pretextual. The prosecutor did not offer any explanation for how employment as a church deacon related to the factual circumstances of the case or qualifications to serve as a juror … . Furthermore, the prosecutor’s challenge was admittedly based on his “feeling” that a church deacon would have difficulty sitting in judgment of another, and the prosecutor failed to pursue questioning of the prospective juror to ascertain whether this intuitive feeling was founded in fact … . When the reason advanced for a peremptory challenge relates to a juror’s appearance, deference must be afforded to the trial court’s findings with regard to pretext, as the trial court has the distinct advantage of being able to observe the juror … . However, the same cannot be said when the reason advanced for the challenge is based on the juror’s profession or background … . Indeed, it would not “be acceptable for this Court to invoke the rule providing for deference to the trial court in matters of credibility in order to rubber stamp every determination relating to the legitimacy of a peremptory challenge” … . People v Bell, 2015 NY Slip Op 01812, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

Failure to Include Restitution in Plea Agreement Required that the Sentencing Court Give the Defendant the Opportunity to Withdraw Her Plea Before Including Restitution in the Sentence

The Second Department determined County Court erred when it, in the absence of a prior agreement, imposed restitution as part of defendant’s sentence without giving the defendant the opportunity to withdraw her plea:

Although a court is free to reserve the right to order restitution as part of a plea agreement, the County Court did not do so here. Instead, at the very end of the sentencing proceeding, after imposing the agreed-upon terms, the court briefly turned to other matters prior to stating that it was also signing restitution judgment orders.

The defendant contends, among other things, that, before adding restitution to the sentence, the County Court should first have given her the option to withdraw her plea of guilty or to accept a sentence including restitution. Preliminarily, we note that, in light of the fact that the court did not give the defendant a sufficient opportunity to withdraw her plea of guilty before imposing restitution, the defendant’s claim is not subject to the preservation requirement … . Moreover, we agree with the defendant that the County Court erred … . People v Molinaro, 2015 NY Slip Op 01820, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

DLRA Provision Terminating Sentences After Three Years of Unrevoked Parole Did Not Apply to Non-Drug Related Offense by “Merger”

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rivera, determined that the provision of the Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA) [Executive Law former 259-j (3-a)] which allowed the termination of sentences for enumerated drug crimes after three years of unrevoked parole did not apply (under a merger theory) to a non-drug conspiracy offense where the maximum sentence for the conspiracy had not expired at the time the three-year-unrevoked-parole mark for the drug offenses had been reached:

The application of Executive Law former § 259-j(3-a) to this petitioner did not squarely fit within the express purpose of the 2004 DLRA. The 2004 DLRA was intended to grant specific relief to a clearly identified and circumscribed class, namely, “low level non-violent drug offenders” … . A “manager of a drug ring” cannot be deemed to be the low level offender contemplated by the statute. Further, it is unreasonable to perceive someone convicted of conspiracy to murder as “nonviolent.”

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the petitioner seeks more than the benefit heretofore conferred upon him by the 2004 DLRA and Executive Law former § 259-j(3-a). He seeks, in effect, to bootstrap the sentence imposed on the conspiracy conviction to the sentences imposed on the drug-related convictions in an attempt to discharge the remaining term thereof. However, this attempt must fail for the following reasons.

First, Executive Law former § 259-j(3-a) applies only to the specific drug-related felony offenses set forth in articles 220 and 221 of the Penal Law (see Correction Law § 205[4]). That statute cannot be reasonably construed to terminate the petitioner’s sentence on the conspiracy conviction, a non-drug-related conviction. The outcome sought by the petitioner is contrary to established precedent. Courts applying the DLRA are “not given the discretion to fashion new sentences or add terms of imprisonment, but are constrained to make an existing sentence determinate in the manner dictated by the DLRA” … .

Second, we disagree with the petitioner’s reading of Penal Law § 70.30(1) … . * * * The express language of Penal Law § 70.30(1) states that the maximum terms shall “be satisfied by discharge of the term which has the longest unexpired time to run.” … [A]t the time that [petitioner] became eligible for relief under Executive Law former § 259-j(3-a), none of the terms had expired or been discharged. The application of Executive Law former § 259-j(3-a) operated to effectively shorten the maximum term of his drug-related sentences (i.e., life) to the approximately 16 years that the petitioner served. Thus, upon the application of the early-termination provision under Executive Law former § 259-j(3-a), the maximum term of his sentence on the conspiracy conviction, which was 25 years, had the longest unexpired time to run (see Penal Law § 70.30[1][a]). People ex rel. Baez v Superintendent, Queensboro Corr. Facility, 2015 NY Slip Op 01827, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

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