You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Police May Direct Occupants to Step Out of the Car After a Vehicle-Stop

In affirming the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized after a vehicle stop the Second Department determined the police properly requested that the occupants step out of the car:

“In light of the heightened dangers faced by investigating police officers during traffic stops, a police officer may, as a precautionary measure and without particularized suspicion, direct the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle to step out of the car” … . People v Mitchell, 2015 NY Slip Op 01292, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

,

Defendant’s Verbal Abuse of His Lawyer Did Not Constitute a Waiver of His Right to Counsel—Criteria for Valid Waiver Explained

The Third Department determined the defendant did not, by his disruptive behavior and his telling his lawyer she was fired, waive his right to counsel:

Defendant’s “conduct unambiguously indicate[d] a defiance of the processes of law and . . . disrupt[ed] the [hearing] after all parties [were] assembled and ready to proceed,” and he arguably thereby forfeited his right to be present at the hearing … . Nevertheless, he did not validly waive his right to counsel. “For such a waiver to be effective, the trial court must be satisfied that,” among other things, “it has been made competently, intelligently and voluntarily” … . Thus, the court must undertake a “searching inquiry . . . when a defendant [seeks to] waive[] the right to counsel in favor of self-representation[,] aimed at [e]nsuring that the defendant [is] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” … . Here, Supreme Court did not make any attempt to apprise defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se or the importance of counsel’s role, and there is no indication on the record before us that defendant “acted with full knowledge and appreciation of the panoply of constitutional protections that would be adversely affected by counsel’s inability to participate” … . Indeed, defendant stated that he did not wish to represent himself. Inasmuch as the court “did not make the requisite searching inquiry to [e]nsure that defendant was aware of the drawbacks of self-representation before allowing him to go down that path” … . People v Middlemiss, 2015 NY Slip Op 01208, 3rd Dept 2-11-15

 

, ,

Failure to Inform Defendant of His Right to Counsel for an Appeal Taken by the People Deprived Defendant of that Right

The Second Department determined that a defendant must be informed of his right to counsel on an appeal taken by the People:

A defendant has important interests at stake on an appeal by the People, and is thus entitled to certain protections, including “the right to appellate counsel of defendant’s choice and the right to seek appointment of counsel upon proof of indigency” … . “The ultimate duty of informing the defendant of his right to have counsel on appeal rests with the State” … and, absent record evidence that the defendant was informed of the right to counsel and waived that right, the Appellate Division should not proceed to consider and decide an appeal by the People … . Since there is no such record evidence in this case, we agree with the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel on the People’s appeal to this Court … . Accordingly, we assign counsel to represent the defendant on the People’s appeal …, and will consider and decide the remainder of the application upon the submission of all briefs. People v Clemente, 2015 NY Slip Op 01287, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

,

Warrantless Search of Defendant’s Jacket Not Justified–Defendant Was Handcuffed Inside a Police Car and Jacket Was Outside the Car

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, over a dissent, determined that the warrantless search of defendant's jacket could not be justified.  The defendant was handcuffed and sitting in the back of a police car when the jacket, which was on the trunk of the police car, was searched:

“[A]ll warrantless searches presumptively are unreasonable per se,” and, “[w]here a warrant has not been obtained, it is the People who have the burden of overcoming” this presumption of unreasonableness … . As the Court of Appeals recently reiterated in Jimenez (22 NY3d at 717), the People must satisfy two separate requirements to justify a warrantless search of a container incident to arrest. “The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest” (Jimenez, 22 NY3d at 721 [internal quotation marks omitted]…). The second requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances (Jimenez, 22 NY3d at 722). The Court of Appeals has recognized two interests underlying the exigency requirement: the safety of the public and the arresting officer, and the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment … .  * * *

Here, the jacket was unquestionably outside defendant's grabbable area at the time of the search, which even the dissent acknowledges. Defendant was sitting handcuffed inside a police car, the jacket was outside lying on the vehicle's trunk, and numerous officers were on the scene. Thus, the jacket had been reduced to the exclusive control of the police and there was no reasonable possibility that defendant could have reached it… .

Further, the People failed to establish the requisite exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search of the jacket. Although defendant had previously struggled with police, five to six additional officers had arrived on the scene and defendant was subdued and placed in the police car. Thus, the scene at the time of the search was police-controlled … . People v Morales, 2015 NY Slip Op 01190, 1st Dept 2-10-15

 

,

More Sophisticated DNA Test, Ruling Out the Defendant as the Source of Semen, Was a Proper Basis for Vacating Defendant’s Conviction–Criteria Described

The Fourth Department upheld County Court's grant of defendant's motion to vacate his rape conviction because a recent DNA test demonstrated he was not the source of semen found in the victim's vagina (the source was the victim's boyfriend).  At the time of the trial the DNA results were inconclusive and the prosecutor had argued the presence of semen corroborated the victim's assertion defendant had raped her:

“It is well settled that on a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction based on newly [*2]discovered evidence, the movant must establish, inter alia, that there is newly discovered evidence: (1) which will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) which was discovered since the trial; (3) which could not have been discovered prior to trial; (4) which is material; (5) which is not cumulative; and[] (6) which does not merely impeach or contradict the record evidence” … . “The power to grant an order for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is purely statutory. Such power may be exercised only when the requirements of the statute have been satisfied, the determination of which rests within the sound discretion of the court” … . People v White, 2015 NY Slip Op 01075, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

Evidence Sufficient to Support Count Charging Sexual Abuse First Degree, Despite Evidence Defendant Did Not Touch the Victim for the Purpose of Gratifying Sexual Desire

The Fourth Department determined the evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient to support the count charging sexual abuse in the first degree.  The issue was whether there was sufficient evidence defendant touched the victim for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire.  Based upon what the defendant said at the time, the purpose of his touching the victim was to determine whether she had recently had sex with another.  The court explained the level of proof required at the grand jury stage:

” Legally sufficient evidence' means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof” (CPL 70.10 [1]). Thus, “[o]n a motion to dismiss an indictment based on legally insufficient evidence, the issue is whether the evidence before the [g]rand [j]ury establishes a prima facie case” … . In deciding a motion to dismiss a count of an indictment for legally insufficient evidence, a “reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crime[],' and whether the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference' . . . That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference' ” … .

As relevant here, “[a] person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact . . . [b]y forcible compulsion” (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]), and sexual contact is defined as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party” (§ 130.00 [3]). Consequently, the People were required to submit sufficient evidence from which the grand jury could have inferred that defendant touched the victim's vagina for the purpose of gratifying his or the victim's sexual desire. It is well settled that, “[b]ecause the question of whether a person was seeking sexual gratification is generally a subjective inquiry, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrator” … . Here, we conclude that the evidence before the grand jury, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was sufficient to permit the grand jury to infer that defendant touched the sexual and intimate parts of the victim's body by forcible compulsion for the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire … . To require, as defendant suggests, that the reviewing court accept the explanation that defendant proffered for his conduct, “would skew a reviewing court's inquiry and restrict, if not extinguish, the [g]rand [j]ury's unassailable authority to consider logical inferences that flow from the facts presented to it” … . People v Hoffert, 2015 NY Slip Op 01083, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

Evidence Sufficient to Support Count Charging Sexual Abuse First Degree, Despite Evidence Defendant Did Not Touch the Victim for the Purpose of Gratifying Sexual Desire

The Fourth Department determined the evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient to support the count charging sexual abuse in the first degree.  The issue was whether there was sufficient evidence defendant touched the victim for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire.  Based upon what the defendant said at the time, the purpose of his touching the victim was to determine whether she had recently had sex with another.  The court explained the level of proof required at the grand jury stage:

” Legally sufficient evidence' means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof” (CPL 70.10 [1]). Thus, “[o]n a motion to dismiss an indictment based on legally insufficient evidence, the issue is whether the evidence before the [g]rand [j]ury establishes a prima facie case” … . In deciding a motion to dismiss a count of an indictment for legally insufficient evidence, a “reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crime[],' and whether the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference' . . . That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the [g]rand [j]ury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference' ” … .

As relevant here, “[a] person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact . . . [b]y forcible compulsion” (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]), and sexual contact is defined as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party” (§ 130.00 [3]). Consequently, the People were required to submit sufficient evidence from which the grand jury could have inferred that defendant touched the victim's vagina for the purpose of gratifying his or the victim's sexual desire. It is well settled that, “[b]ecause the question of whether a person was seeking sexual gratification is generally a subjective inquiry, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrator” … . Here, we conclude that the evidence before the grand jury, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was sufficient to permit the grand jury to infer that defendant touched the sexual and intimate parts of the victim's body by forcible compulsion for the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire … . To require, as defendant suggests, that the reviewing court accept the explanation that defendant proffered for his conduct, “would skew a reviewing court's inquiry and restrict, if not extinguish, the [g]rand [j]ury's unassailable authority to consider logical inferences that flow from the facts presented to it” … . People v Hoffert, 2015 NY Slip Op 01083, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

Department of Social Services (DSS) Is Not a “Victim” under the Penal Law—Defendant Can Not Be Ordered to Pay Restitution to DSS for Care of Child-Victim of Defendant’s Offense

The Fourth Department determined the Department of Social Services (DSS) was not a “victim” within the meaning of Penal Law 60.27 and therefore the defendant could not be ordered to pay restitution to the DSS for expenses incurred caring for the child-victim of defendant's crime:

It is well established that restitution may be required for expenses that “were not voluntarily incurred, but stem from legal obligations that are directly and causally related to the crime” … . Here, however, the foster care expenses are the result of the placement of the victim in the care and custody of DSS pursuant to a proceeding in Family Court (see Family Ct Act § 1055 [1]), and thus DSS is performing its statutory duty pursuant to Social Services Law § 398 (2) (b). We note that the Legislature has specifically provided that certain governmental agencies and entities are entitled to restitution when performing their statutory duties (see Penal Law § 60.27 [9], [10], [13]). Section 60.27 (9), for example, was enacted to permit restitution to police agencies for unrecovered funds used in undercover drug purchases following the decision in People v Rowe (152 AD2d 907, 909, affd 75 NY2d 948, 949). In Rowe, we determined that, absent legislative intent to include a city police department as a “victim,” such funds could not be recovered by means of a court order of restitution. Similarly, here, in the absence of legislative intent that DSS is a “victim” pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27, we decline to impose an obligation on defendant to pay restitution for the expenditure of public funds for providing foster care for the victim. People v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 01107, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

Prosecutorial Misconduct Deprived Defendant of a Fair Trial

The Fourth Department, exercising its “interest of justice” jurisdiction, over a dissent, determined the misconduct of the prosecutor warranted a new trial.  The prosecutor improperly questioned defendant about his homosexuality and the criminal records of persons with whom defendant resided, The prosecutor further improperly introduced evidence of defendant's propensity to commit a crime and elicited bolstering testimony from a police officer about the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome without qualifying the officer as an expert in that area. With respect to the police officer's testimony, the court wrote:

…[T]he prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from a police investigator that he had received training establishing that underaged victims of sexual crimes frequently disclosed the crime in minimal detail at first, and provided more thorough and intimate descriptions of the event later. That testimony dovetailed with the People's position concerning the way in which the victim revealed this incident … . Thus, we conclude that the investigator's testimony “was the precise equivalent of affirming the credibility of the People's witness through the vehicle of an opinion that [sexual abuse is frequently committed] as the victim had related. It is always within the sole province of the jury to decide whether the testimony of any witness is truthful or not. The jurors were fully capable of using their ordinary experience to test the credibility of the victim-witness; and the receipt of the [investigator]'s testimony in this regard was improper and indeed constituted usurpation of the function of the jury . . . Where, as here, the sole reason for questioning the expert' witness is to bolster the testimony of another witness (here the victim) by explaining that his version of the events is more believable than the defendant's, the expert's' testimony is equivalent to an opinion that the defendant is guilty” (People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 439), and the prosecutor improperly elicited that testimony.

Moreover, by eliciting that testimony, the prosecutor improperly introduced expert testimony regarding the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome. Although such testimony is admissible in certain situations …, here it was elicited from a police investigator under the guise that it was part of the investigator's training. The prosecutor failed to lay a foundation establishing that the investigator was qualified to provide such testimony …. Furthermore, the evidence does not establish that the investigator had “extensive training and experience [that] rendered [him] qualified to provide such [testimony]” … . People v Scheidelman, 2015 NY Slip Op 01111, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

Proof Presented to Grand Jury Was Sufficient to Support Allegation Defendant “Caused” the Death of a Police Officer Killed by Another Driver While Responding to the Accident In Which Defendant Was Involved

The Second Department determined the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to support the charge that defendant, who had been involved in a vehicle accident and was allegedly under the influence of alcohol, “caused” the death of a police officer who was struck by a car at the accident scene.  The court explained the nature of the proof required to support the charge that the defendant “caused” the death of another:

“Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted—and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence—would warrant conviction'” … . ” Legally sufficient evidence' means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof” (CPL 70.10[1]).

In order to be held criminally liable for a person's death, a defendant must have engaged in conduct that “actually contribute[d]” to that person's death … . The defendant's actions need not be the sole cause of death and, indeed, the defendant need not have committed the fatal act to be liable … . The test is, instead, whether it may be reasonably foreseen that the defendant's actions would result in the victim's death; if so, the defendant's actions may, under the criminal law, constitute a “sufficiently direct cause” of the death to warrant criminal liability for it … .

Here, viewing the evidence before the grand jury in the light most favorable to the prosecution …, we find that there was legally sufficient proof before the grand jury that the defendant's actions “caused” the officer's death. Specifically, it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's conduct would cause collisions and that the police would respond and be required to be in the roadway, where they would be exposed to the potentially lethal danger presented by fast-moving traffic … . People v Ryan, 2015 NY Slip Op 00915, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


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