You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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


,

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


,

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


,

Defendant’s Exclusion from a “Sirois” Hearing (Where It Was Determined a Witness Was “Practically Unavailable” Because of Threats Made to the Witness on Behalf of the Defendant) Was Reversible Error

The Second Department reversed defendant's conviction because he was excluded from a “Sirois” hearing where it was determined a witness was “practically unavailable” because of threats made by a person on behalf of the defendant.  The defendant had been allowed to hear the testimony but was not able to participate in the proceedings in any way:

“[A] defendant's absence at a Sirois hearing has a substantial effect on his ability to defend the charges against him and, thus, a Sirois hearing constitutes a material stage of the trial” … . The “[d]efendant was entitled to confront the witness against him at that hearing and also to be present so that he could advise counsel of any errors or falsities in the witness' testimony which could have an impact on guilt or innocence” … . Here, the defendant was not in the courtroom and was not allowed to confer with his attorney during the hearing. Moreover, the fact that the defendant was able to hear the witness's testimony from a holding cell, and that the Supreme Court did not render a decision on the People's application until after argument was heard three days after the hearing, were insufficient safeguards to ensure that the defendant was “afforded the opportunity for meaningful participation to which he was entitled” … . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 00916, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


,

Even Where Probable Cause for Arrest Exists, a Search Can Not Be Justified as a Search Incident to Arrest Unless the Searching Officer(s) Intended to Arrest Based Upon the Existing Probable Cause—Here the Officers Did Not Intend to Arrest the Defendant for Littering and the Search Was Therefore Not a Valid Search Incident to Arrest

The Third Department determined the search of defendant's backpack was illegal and suppressed the weapon found. Although the defendant had discarded a cup while the officers were watching him, providing grounds for arrest for littering, the officers did not intend to arrest the defendant for littering and in fact did not charge the defendant with littering.  Therefore the search of the backpack could not be justified as a search incident to arrest:

Based on the recent Court of Appeals decision in People v Reid (__ NY3d __ 2014, 2014 NY Slip Op 08759 [2014]), which holds that there must be either an actual or intended arrest for the offense justifying the search, we now reverse.

It is well recognized that the police may search the person or area within the immediate control of any individual who is lawfully placed under arrest … . The warrantless search incident to arrest advances the twin objectives of ensuring the safety of law enforcement and the prevention of evidence tampering or destruction by a suspect. It is not particularly significant whether a search precedes an arrest or vice versa, so long as the two events occur in a nearly contemporaneous manner… . Based on Reid, however, it is now clear that the police must either make an arrest or intend to make an arrest at the time of the search in order for the search to be considered lawful … . The intent to arrest for the offense justifying the search must be present even if a defendant is ultimately arrested for a different offense … .

In Reid, the defendant was pulled over by a police officer after he was observed driving erratically. Based on the defendant's disheveled appearance and odd responses to questions, the officer ordered him out of the car, searched his person, and uncovered a knife in his pocket. Although it was undisputed that the officer's observations gave him probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while intoxicated, the officer testified at the suppression hearing that he had no intention of arresting the defendant at the time he was initially stopped and searched. The officer also explained that it was not until discovery of the knife that he decided to arrest the defendant. In declining to uphold the search as incident to the defendant's arrest, the Court of Appeals observed that “but for the search,” the arrest “would never have taken place (2014 NY Slip Op 08759, *6),” concluding that it was irrelevant that an arrest for DWI could have been made prior to the search. The Court explained that the search must be “incident to an actual arrest, not just probable cause that might have led to an arrest, but did not” (2014 NY Slip Op 08759, *4). This necessarily requires that, at the time the search is undertaken, an arrest has either been made or the officer has already formulated the intent to effectuate an arrest.

While in this case the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for littering (see Administrative Code of the City of New York § 16-118…]), defendant was not arrested for that offense. Nor did either of the officers testify at the suppression hearing that they harbored any intent to arrest defendant until they discovered the gun. According to officer Arslanbeck, it was only after they discovered a weapon in defendant's backpack that a decision to arrest him was made. Without an actual arrest or the formulation of an intent to arrest defendant for littering prior to frisking his bag, the search cannot be justified as having been incident to defendant's arrest … . People v Magnum, 2015 NY Slip Op 00796, 1st Dept 2-3-15


,

Judge’s Failure to Question Prospective Juror Re: the Juror’s Possible Bias In Favor of Police Officers Was Reversible Error/Prosecutor’s Suggestion in Summation that Simply Being a Defendant Is Evidence of Guilt Was Grounds for Reversal As Well

The First Department reversed defendant's conviction because the trial judge did not further question a juror who indicated bias in favor of police officers.  [The judge, in denying defense counsel's “for cause” challenge, erroneously indicated it was defense counsel's role to question the juror about the juror's ability to be fair.]  In addition, the prosecutor's suggestion in summation that simply being a defendant is evidence of guilt was grounds for reversal:

Criminal Procedure Law § 270.20(1)(b) provides that a party may challenge a prospective juror for cause if the juror “has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at trial.” Upon making this type of challenge, “a juror who has revealed doubt, because of prior knowledge or opinion, about [his] ability to serve impartially must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that [he] can be fair” … . The CPL “does not require any particular expurgatory oath or talismanic words” …, but challenged jurors “must in some form give unequivocal assurance that they can set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” … . Those who have given “less-than-unequivocal assurances of impartiality . . . must be excused” and “[i]f there is any doubt about a prospective juror's impartiality, trial courts should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have replaced one impartial juror with another” … .

In this case, the prospective juror gave a response that was uncertain at best, stating that he did not know and “couldn't say” whether he would be able to judge an officer's credibility as opposed to a civilian witness. * * * Given this ambiguity … it was incumbent upon the trial court to take corrective action to elicit unequivocal assurance from the prospective juror that he would be able to reach a verdict based solely upon the court's instructions on the law … . …

…[T]he prosecutor's summation remarks regarding reasonable doubt also constituted reversible error, as these remarks suggested that the jury should convict based on facts extraneous to the trial. Specifically, the comments “linked [the defendant] to every defendant who turned out to be guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment,” thus inviting the jury to consider his status as a defendant as “evidence tending to prove his guilt” … . Moreover, the prosecutor's comments tended to minimize the jury's sense of responsibility for the verdict. These remarks exceed the bounds of permissible advocacy. People v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 00797, 1st Dept 2-3-15


,

Suppression Should Not Have Been Granted Because the Officer Who Made the Vehicle Stop Had Died/Hearsay Evidence from a Police Officer Who Arrived at the Scene After the Stop and Spoke to the Deceased Officer Was Admissible at the Suppression Hearing

The Second Department determined the hearsay testimony of a police officer (Schmidt) who learned of the reason for the stop of defendant’s vehicle from another officer (Olivieri) was admissible in the suppression hearing.  Supreme Court had suppressed the evidence stemming from the stop because the officer who made the stop (Olivieri) had died and could not therefore be “confronted” at the hearing:

Pursuant to statute, “hearsay evidence is admissible to establish any material fact” at a pretrial suppression hearing (CPL 710.60[4]…). Thus, “[a] police witness at a suppression hearing may establish probable cause by personal knowledge, as well as by information supplied by fellow officers” … . Where the knowledge of the imparting officer is based on his or her first-hand observations, the People are not required to produce that officer at the suppression hearing … .

Here, Schmidt’s testimony established that the stop of the defendant’s vehicle was lawful, based upon the first-hand observations of Olivieri, which were imparted to Schmidt … . Probable cause for the defendant’s arrest also was established through Olivieri’s observations, as imparted to Schmidt, together with Schmidt’s own personal observations … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v Washington (541 US 36) does not require a different result. In Crawford, the Supreme Court considered whether particular evidence admitted at trial violated the defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution (see id. at 38…), and did not address the admission of hearsay evidence in pretrial suppression hearings … . People v Mitchell, 2015 NY Slip Op 00786, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

Conviction Reversed Because Court Failed to Inquire About the Reasons for Defendant’s Request for Substitution of Counsel After Trial Began

The Second Department, over a dissent, reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not take any steps to determine the reasons for defendant’s request for new counsel after the trial had started:

Defendant is entitled to a new trial because the court improperly denied his request for substitution of counsel without conducting any inquiry whatsoever, and without permitting defendant to explain, either orally or in writing, why such an inquiry might be necessary … . At the beginning of the fourth day of trial, defendant asked to speak to the court. In denying his request, the court clearly assumed that he wanted to make a statement pertaining to his defense, even after defendant indicated that the subject matter was “my attorney and advice” and that the attorney was not “doing his proper work.” Defendant then asked to hand up papers that defense counsel immediately identified as “a notice of motion for reassignment of counsel,” but the court refused to look at the papers, and stated, “I will not reassign counsel. The motion is denied.”

…In People v Sides (75 NY2d 822 [1990]), for instance, the trial court was found to have erred in failing to ask “even a single question” about the nature of the disagreement after both the defendant and his counsel spoke of a breakdown in communications and trust … . Here, the court did not even learn the nature of the disagreement, let alone ask any questions about it. While not all requests for new counsel contain the specific factual allegations to show that the complaints and request are “serious,” which then triggers the court’s obligation to make a “minimal inquiry” into the nature of the disagreement and its potential for resolution …, here defendant was not given an opportunity to make any allegations. This is not a situation where a defendant rested on unelaborated claims; the court expressly declined to listen to defendant or read his submissions … . People v McCummings, 2015 NY Slip Op 00610, 1st Dept 1-22-15

 

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