You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Detective’s Testimony About a Non-Testifying Witness’ Description of the Perpetrator Properly Admitted to Explain Detective’s Subsequent Actions and Complete the Narrative

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined a detective’s testimony about a non-testifying witness’ (Anderson’s) description of the perpetrator was admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of explaining the detective’s subsequent actions, and completing the narrative of events:

The jury was specifically instructed not to consider this description for its truth, and the description was properly admitted for the relevant, nonhearsay purpose of “establishing the reasons behind the detective’s actions, and to complete the narrative of events leading to the defendant’s arrest” … . Contrary to the view of our dissenting colleague, we find that the People sufficiently established a connection between Anderson’s description and subsequent police conduct. Anderson’s general description of the perpetrator, as distinct from a direct identification of the defendant, led to successive police investigatory conduct such as interviewing other witnesses, including a witness who identified the defendant at trial, and procuring the surveillance video of the defendant … . Thus, the Supreme Court did not err in admitting Anderson’s description of the perpetrator for a limited nonhearsay purpose … . People v Speaks, 2015 NY Slip Op 00396, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

, ,

Father’s Recording of Defendant’s Berating and Threatening Father’s Child Admissible Under the “Vicarious Consent” Theory (Father Vicariously Consented, on Behalf of the Child, to the Recording)/Variance Between Jury Instruction and Charges in the Indictment Was Harmless Error–No Possibility Defendant Was Convicted of a Theory Not Encompassed by the Indictment

The Second Department applied a “vicarious consent” theory to reject the defendant’s argument that the father’s recording of the defendant berating and threatening the father’s child violated the eavesdropping statutes, Penal Law 250.05 and CPLR 4506. Father had called mother’s cell phone which mother answered without speaking. Father could hear the defendant speaking to the child over the phone and recorded the defendant’s words.  In addition to the “vicarious consent” discussion, he Second Department noted that a variance between the jury instructions and the charges in the indictment was harmless error because there was no possibility the guilty verdict was based upon a theory not in the indictment.  With respect to the “vicarious consent” to the recording, the court wrote:

While … Penal Law § 250.05 serves the strong public policy goal of protecting citizens from eavesdropping, we are not persuaded that the New York Legislature intended to subject parents to criminal penalties when, “out of concern for the bests interests of their minor child, they record that child’s conversations” … . Given the similarity between the federal wiretap statute and New York’s eavesdropping statute, and recognizing that the “vicarious consent” exemption is rooted on a parent’s need to act in the best interests of his or her child …, we deem it appropriate to adopt it as an exemption to Penal Law § 250.05.

Here, the People sufficiently demonstrated that the father had a “good faith, objectively reasonable basis to believe” that it was necessary for the welfare of the infant to record the conversation …, such that he could consent to the recording on the infant’s behalf … . Accordingly, the “vicarious consent” exemption applies, and admission of the subject recording was not barred by CPLR 4506. People v Badalamenti, 2015 NY Slip Op 00384, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

First Degree Burglary Conviction Upheld Even though the Residential Portion of the Building Was Not Accessible from the Basement of the First-Floor Store Where the Defendant Entered the Building

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant was properly convicted of first degree burglary even though the residential portion of the building could not be accessed from the the basement of the first-floor store, where defendant entered the building.  The majority found that the exception fashioned for “large” buildings where the residents could not be aware of the defendant’s presence in the non-residential portion of the building did not apply:

In McCray, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the rule, established in Quinn v People (71 NY 561 [1878]), that “if a building contains a dwelling, a burglary committed in any part of that building is the burglary of a dwelling; but an exception exists where the building is large and the crime is committed in a place so remote and inaccessible from the living quarters that the special dangers inherent in the burglary of a dwelling do not exist” (McCray, 23 NY3d at 624). Although the inaccessibility requirement appears to have been met, the other condition for application of the exception  – namely, that the building in question be “large” – has not.

Stating that the decision in McCray did not turn on the size of the building, and that the critical factor is whether there is close contiguity between the residential and nonresidential elements of the building such that the residents of the building would be aware of the burglar’s presence, the dissent would reverse the conviction for second-degree burglary because the basement was entirely sealed off and inaccessible from the residences above. However, in Quinn, which is the foundation on which McCray stands, there also was no “internal communication” between the shop that was broken into and the living quarters above, and a person had to go into the yard and then up stairs to get from one to another (Quinn at 565). Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of first-degree burglary because the shop “was within the same four outer walls, and under the same roof” (id.). The Court reasoned that “the essence of the crime of burglary at common law is the midnight terror excited, and the liability created by it of danger to human life, growing out of the attempt to defend property from depredation. It is plain that both of these may arise, when the place entered is in close contiguity with the place of the owner’s repose, though the former has no relation to the latter by reason of domestic use or adaptation” (id. at 567). People v Joseph, 2015 NY Slip Op 00299, 1st Dept 1-13-15

 

,

Right to Counsel Not Invoked by Defendant’s Telling Police He Wanted to Speak to his Attorney Before He Signed Anything; Spontaneous Statements Made After Right to Counsel Attached Not Suppressible; Non-Communicative Parts of Video Not Suppressible; Limited Right to Counsel Re: Deciding to Submit to Chemical Test Not Invoked

The Third Department, in reversing (in part) County Court’s suppression of videotaped statements made by the defendant after a DWI arrest, dealt in some depth with several issues:  (1) the court noted that, although a defendant seeking a suppression hearing must make sworn factual allegations supporting the motion, CPL [Criminal Procedure Law] 710.60 “does not mandate summary denial of defendant’s motion even if the factual allegations are deficient” and the hearing was properly granted in this case under “principles of judicial economy;” (2) the defendant did not invoke his right to counsel by telling the police he wanted to speak to his attorney before he signed anything; (3) the defendant did invoke his right to counsel when he subsequently asked that he be allowed to call his attorney; (3) defendant’s spontaneous statements, even those made after right to counsel attached, were not suppressible; (4) defendant’s responses to questions about the chemical test and where he last had a drink were suppressible; (5) the portions of the videotape that did not contain any communication were not suppressible; and (6) although a defendant has a limited right to counsel for the purpose of deciding whether to submit to a chemical test, the defendant did not exercise that right before refusing the test. With regard to spontaneous statements and the “non-communicative” portions of the video, the court wrote:

With a few exceptions, the video reveals that defendant’s statements in the period preceding the reading of his Miranda rights were made without any triggering words or conduct by the police. As the officers played no role in soliciting them, these statements constitute spontaneous declarations and should not have been subject to suppression … . However, at three points following defendant’s successful invocation of his right to counsel, officers asked him questions that should reasonably have been anticipated to elicit responses. The first such exchange occurred between 03:47:49 a.m. and 03:48:10 a.m., when defendant responded after an officer asked him what he thought would occur as a result of refusing a chemical test. The second occurred between 03:50:01 a.m. and 03:50:09 a.m., when defendant confirmed his last drinking location in response to a question by one of the officers. The third occurred between 04:01:05 a.m. and 04:06:23 a.m., when an officer asked defendant several questions about chemical testing and the events of the evening. Defendant’s responses to these inquiries cannot be said to be spontaneous. Thus, his statements during these three time periods and the corresponding portions of the video were properly suppressed.

As to portions of the video in which defendant was not speaking, evidence obtained from a defendant following invocation of the right to counsel is subject to suppression where it constitutes “a communicative act that disclose[s] the contents of defendant’s mind” … . Generally, a defendant’s physical characteristics and appearance are not considered to be communicative in nature … . Here, portions of the video in which defendant is silent show only his physical condition and appearance and do not disclose any communicative statements made after he had invoked his right to counsel. Whether any of these video segments may ultimately be deemed admissible at trial depends on other considerations not presented here, but there is no basis for their suppression as communicative statements … . People v Higgins, 2014 NY Slip Op 00253, 3rd Dept 1-8-15

 

,

Reversible Error to Allow Cross-Examination of Defendant About an Unrelated Prior Crime

The Third Department determined it was reversible error to allow the defendant, who was convicted of manslaughter, to be cross-examinated about a unrelated prior crime involving an altercation and violence.  The evidence was not relevant to credibility and served only to demonstrate a propensity to instigate fights:

The People sought the court’s permission to cross-examine defendant about a previous guilty plea to a charge of harassment in the second degree based upon defendant’s physical altercation with another woman, maintaining that such questioning would be useful to, among other things, impeach defendant’s credibility. Despite defendant’s objection that such line of questioning would have no probative value, the court allowed the proposed cross-examination, stating that such evidence of defendant’s previous assault was “relevant” to “show that [defendant] can be physically aggressive” and, additionally, that such proof would speak to defendant’s anticipated testimony that she had acted in self-defense. The court went on to indicate that the admission of such evidence would not unduly prejudice defendant inasmuch as the prior incident did not involve a weapon or result in serious physical injury.

Based upon County Court’s authorization, the People cross-examined defendant at trial about the previous altercation, suggesting that defendant had instigated the fight and, further, emphasizing that defendant punched the woman with a closed fist, causing her to lose a tooth. Moments later, the People resumed its questioning about the altercation with the victim, asking defendant whether she baited the victim to come up to her apartment knowing that she would use a knife in a fight with the victim. As the questions regarding defendant’s prior assault bore no relation to defendant’s credibility, but rather served solely to illustrate defendant’s propensity to initiate fights so that she could physically attack other people, we find that County Court abused its discretion in allowing such inquiries … . Accordingly, as defendant’s guilt was not overwhelmingly established by the proof presented at trial and we “cannot say that there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction,” the judgment must be reversed and the matter remitted for a new trial … . People v Karuzas, 2015 NY Slip Op 00252, 3rd Dept 1-8-15

 

,

Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Hear Defendant’s Refusal to Waive His Right to Remain Silent and His Invocation of His Right to Counsel

The Third Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial because the jury was allowed to hear a recording in which defendant refused to waive his right to remain silent and invoked his right to counsel. Under the facts, the error was not harmless. The Third Department directed that the portion of the recording which recounts defendant’s criminal history be redacted on retrial:

….[D]efendant is entitled to a new trial. During their case-in-chief, the People generally cannot introduce evidence that a defendant invoked his or her constitutional right to remain silent or to obtain counsel … . At the trial here, the People played the recording of the police interview up to and including the portion in which defendant stated that he would not sign the line of the Miranda form indicating his willingness to speak to the detective, and defendant stated, “Let me have a lawyer.” This was improper because “it creates a prejudicial inference of consciousness of guilt” by letting the jury hear defendant invoke his constitutional rights … . People v Carey, 2015 NY Slip Op 00251, 3rd Dept 1-8-15

 

,

(Harmless) Error to Admit Voice Identification Testimony—The People Did Not Provide Notice of the Testimony and the Identification Was Not Merely Confirmatory

The Fourth Department noted that voice identification testimony should not have been allowed because the people did not provide notice of it and it was not merely confirmatory.  The error was deemed harmless however:

We agree with defendant that the court erred in allowing one of the victims to offer voice identification testimony at trial. Prior to trial, the prosecutor had the victim listen to recordings of telephone calls allegedly made by defendant from jail, and the victim identified the voice of the person making the calls as belonging to defendant. The victim offered similar testimony at trial over defendant’s objection. Because the People failed to provide defendant with notice of the pretrial voice identification procedure as required by CPL 710.30 (1) …, the voice identification testimony was admissible at trial only if the identification was merely confirmatory as a matter of law … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the victim’s identification of defendant’s voice was not merely confirmatory inasmuch as the victim acknowledged that, although he had heard defendant speak a number of times in the neighborhood, he and defendant had never actually spoken to each other. We thus conclude that the People did not establish as a matter of law that the victim was so familiar with defendant’s voice that “the identification at issue could not be the product of undue suggestiveness” … . People v Ramos, 2015 NY Slip OOp 00049, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Larceny Jury Instruction Shifted Burden of Proof to Defendant—Reversal Required In Absence of Preservation of the Error

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the jury instruction shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:

Penal Law § 155.15 (1) provides that, “[i]n any prosecution for larceny committed by trespassory taking or embezzlement, it is an affirmative defense that the property was appropriated under a claim of right made in good faith.” …[H]owever, the Court of Appeals in People v Chesler (50 NY2d 203, 209-210) “held that section 155.15 was unconstitutional insofar as it made a good-faith claim of right an affirmative defense because to do so impermissibly shifted the burden onto the defendant to disprove the element of intent.” Rather, “a good faith claim of right is properly a defense–—not an affirmative defense—–and thus, the [P]eople have the burden of disproving such defense beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” … . Here, however, the court instructed the jury that “defendant has the burden of proving that she took, withheld or obtained the property under a claim of right made in good faith by a preponderance of the evidence.” We conclude that the court committed a mode of proceedings error when it shifted the burden onto defendant to disprove the element of intent …, thereby requiring reversal of the judgment and a new trial even in the absence of preservation … . People v Forbes-Haas, 2015 NY Slip Op 00092, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Where Proof Is Directed Exclusively to a Theory Not Charged in the Indictment, the Proof Is Insufficient to Support the Conviction—Such a Variance Need Not Be Preserved by Objection to Be Raised on Appeal/Conduct of Spectators (Mouthing Words When Victim Testified) Did Not Require that the Spectators Be Removed and Did Not Mandate the Declaration of a Mistrial

The Fourth Department determined that variance between the charges described in the indictment and the proof at trial required the dismissal of several counts.  Such a variance does not need to be preserved for appeal by objection.  The court noted that the trial judge’s failure to exclude spectators who were mouthing word’s during the victim’s testimony was not an abuse of discretion:

“Where the charge against a defendant is limited either by a bill of particulars or the indictment itself, the defendant has a fundamental and nonwaivable’ right to be tried only on the crimes charged” … . We have thus held that, where, as here, a defendant contends that he or she has been convicted upon an uncharged theory of the crime, such a contention does not require preservation… . * * *

“Where there is a variance between the proof and the indictment, and where the proof is directed exclusively to a new theory rather than the theory charged in the indictment, the proof is deemed insufficient to support the conviction” … . Counts two and three of the indictment alleged hand-to-vagina contact, but the victim testified that the only part of defendant’s body that came into contact with her vagina was defendant’s penis. Indeed, when asked specifically if any other part of defendant’s body came into contact with her vagina during the incident encompassed by counts two and three, the victim responded, “No.” Count nine of the indictment alleged penis-to-vagina contact, but the victim testified that defendant touched her vagina with his hand during that incident. Again, when asked specifically if any other part of defendant’s body came into contact with her vagina during the incident encompassed by count nine, the victim responded, “No.” We thus conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction with respect to counts two, three and nine and that defendant was denied his fundamental and nonwaivable right to be tried on only those crimes charged in the indictment. We therefore modify the judgment accordingly.  People v Duell, 2015 NY Slip Op 00014, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

Statute of Limitations Tolling Provisions Do Not Apply to Endangering the Welfare of a Child

In finding the count charging defendant with endangering the welfare of a child was time-barred, the Fourth Department noted that the tolling provision (starting the statute of limitations when the victim reaches the age of 18) does not apply to that offense:

The statute of limitations for that offense is two years (see CPL 30.10 [2] [c]), and the tolling provision of CPL 30.10 (3) (f) does not apply to that offense … . Although, as noted, defendant’s contention is unpreserved for our review, we exercise our power to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and we modify the judgment accordingly … . People v Lomaglio, 2015 NY Slip Op 00181, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

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