You are here: / Criminal Law

“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

 

,

People’s Failure to Provide Timely Notice of the Intent to Present Witnesses to Rebut the Testimony of Defendant’s Alibi Witness Required Reversal

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the prosecutor failed to show good cause for her failure to provide timely notice of rebuttal witnesses.  Defendant had provided a “notice of alibi.”  Defendant’s alibi witness was his girlfriend, who testified defendant was home with her at the time of the offense.  The prosecutor did not provide reciprocal notice of rebuttal witnesses who would testify that cell phone records demonstrated defendant was not at home with his girlfriend at the time of the offense.  In spite of the lack of timely notice, the trial court allowed the rebuttal testimony after an adjournment:

CPL 250.20(1) provides, among other things, that within eight days of service of a demand by the People, a defendant “must” serve upon the People a “notice of alibi,” and that “[f]or good cause shown, the court may extend the period for service of the notice.” The reciprocal provision, CPL 250.20(2), provides, among other things, that “[w]ithin a reasonable time after receipt of the defendant’s witness list but not later than ten days before trial,” the People “must” serve and file a list of the witnesses the People propose to offer in rebuttal to discredit the defendant’s alibi at the trial, and that “[f]or good cause shown, the court may extend the period for service” of the People’s witness list.

CPL 250.20(3) provides that if the defendant calls an alibi witness at trial without having first served the requisite notice pursuant to CPL 250.20(1), the court “may exclude any testimony of such witness,” or “may in its discretion receive such testimony, but before doing so, it must, upon application” of the People, “grant an adjournment not in excess of three days” (CPL 250.20[3]). CPL 250.20(4) provides that the provisions of subdivision (3) “shall reciprocally apply” when the People seek to offer alibi rebuttal witnesses without having given the requisite notice pursuant to CPL 250.20(2).

Here, the People contend, in effect, that, unlike CPL 250.20(2), which requires the People to show “good cause” for an extension of time to serve the list of alibi rebuttal witnesses, CPL 250.20(3) and (4) do not require such a showing for the court to exercise its discretion in receiving such testimony absent any compliance with the notice requirement. We disagree … . A construction of the statute which requires good cause to be shown before trial, but not during trial, when late notice would be most prejudicial, is both contrary to the plain meaning of the statute, as well as contrary to the intent of the Legislature in amending the statute to comply with the Due Process Clause … . To hold otherwise would mean that CPL 250.20(3) and (4) completely eviscerate the timeliness of notice requirements of CPL 250.20(1) and (2). People v Crevelle, 2015 NY Slip Op 01661, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

ess Required Reversal

,

Insufficient Foundation for Introduction of Grand Jury Testimony as Past Recollection Recorded—No Showing Recollection Was “Fairly Fresh” and Accurate at the Time of the Grand Jury Appearance

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias (disagreeing at length with the rationale of the concurring opinion), reversed defendant’s perjury conviction because a witness’ (Woods’) grand jury testimony was wrongly admitted under the past recollection recorded hearsay exception.  Woods testified and remained available to testify when the hearsay exception was invoked.  Woods claimed that he did not know whether he had actual knowledge of past events or whether his memory stemmed from the many “prep” discussions he had had with the prosecutor over a six-year period. There was a six-year gap between the underlying events and Woods’ grand jury appearance. The First Department determined the prosecutor did not lay a sufficient foundation for admission of the grand jury testimony in that it was not shown that Woods’ recollection was “fairly fresh” at the time of the grand jury testimony:

Although there is no rigid rule as to how soon after the event the statement must have been made …, here the assurance of the accuracy of the recordation and its trustworthiness are diminished by the six- year gap between the underlying events, which concluded in 2000, and Woods’s grand jury testimony in 2006 * * * .

The People argue that Woods’s testimony is admissible despite the six-year gap because the trial court found that he was “feigning a lack of memory.” However, even if Woods’s lack of memory demonstrates that he was unable or unwilling to testify, it does not abrogate the People’s obligation to satisfy the foundational requirement that the recollection was fairly fresh when [*5]recorded or adopted.

Nor was Woods able to “presently testify that the record correctly represented his knowledge and recollection when made” … . Although Woods testified that he believed his grand jury testimony was truthful and accurate, he also testified that “[a]s I sit here right now, I can’t tell you if everything that’s in that Grand Jury that I said was … accurate”; that although he “wanted to be accurate” and “wouldn’t testify untruthfully,” he could not swear that “what’s in the … Grand Jury … was exactly what happened,” and that he could not “remember [if] … what I was talking to was my clear recollection or … was resulting from [my prep sessions] with people.” Thus, Woods’s testimony reflects that although he would not have purposefully lied to the grand jury, he could not presently state that his testimony accurately reflected his own recollection of the events in question at the time that he testified before it … . People V DiTommaso, 2015 NY Slip Op 01592, 1st Dept 2-14-15

 

Failure to Make a Finding of Necessity Re: Restraining Defendant at Trial with a Stun Belt Is Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—Error Must Be Preserved by Objection (No Objection Here)

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court’s failure to make a finding of necessity re: the defendant’s wearing a stun belt (a restraint device) at trial was not a mode of proceedings error.  Therefore the error must be preserved by objection.  Here the defendant consented to the restraint.  People v Cooke, 2015 NY Slip Op 01557, CtApp 2-24-15

 

,

Defendant’s Having Unprotected Sex with Partner After Defendant’s HIV-Positive Diagnosis Did Not Constitute “Depraved Indifference”

The Court of Appeals determined that the “depraved indifference” standard in the first degree reckless endangerment statute was not met by the facts.  Defendant had (consensual) unprotected sex with his partner after the defendant was diagnosed as HIV positive.  The defendant’s partner was subsequently diagnosed as HIV positive:

Depraved indifference is a culpable mental state which means the same thing in the murder and reckless endangerment statutes … . As we explained in People v Suarez (6 NY3d 202, 212 [2005]), “[a] defendant may be convicted of [a depraved indifference crime] when but a single person is endangered in only a few rare circumstances”; specifically, where the defendant exhibits “wanton cruelty, brutality or callousness directed against a particularly vulnerable victim, combined with utter indifference to the life or safety of the helpless target of the perpetrator’s inexcusable acts” (id. at 213). Here, there is no evidence that defendant exposed the victim to the risk of HIV infection out of any malevolent desire for the victim to contract the virus, or that he was utterly indifferent to the victim’s fate .. . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 01485, CtApp 2-19-15

 

,

Bare Allegation in an Attorney Affidavit that, Upon Information and Belief, the Deputies Lacked Probable Cause to Arrest Defendant, Not Enough to Justify a Hearing on a Suppression Motion

In finding defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied without a hearing, the Third Department explained what is required to warrant a hearing:

“A motion seeking suppression of evidence ‘must state the ground or grounds of the motion and must contain sworn allegations of fact . . . supporting such grounds'” … . A hearing in this regard is neither “automatic [n]or generally available [simply] for the asking” … and, except in circumstances not present here (see CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; 710.20 [3], [6]), the trial court “may summarily deny the motion if the papers do not allege a legal basis for suppression or if the factual allegations do not as a matter of law support any alleged ground” … . Here, in support of her suppression motion, defendant tendered the affidavit of her attorney, who merely asserted — upon information and belief — that the deputies in question lacked probable cause to arrest defendant. This “bare allegation of a lack of probable cause, without any factual support, was insufficient to require a hearing” … . People v Briskin, 2015 NY Slip Op 01493, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

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