You are here: / Criminal Law
,

A DEFENDANT WHO HAS WAIVED INDICTMENT CANNOT PLEAD GUILTY TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WHICH INCLUDES AN OFFENSE GREATER THAN ANY CHARGED IN THE CORRESPONDING FELONY COMPLAINT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea to a superior court information (SCI), over a dissent, determined an SCI cannot include an offense greater than any offense charged in the felony complaint. Here the SCI “charged [defendant] with a higher level offense than any contained in the felony complaint, that is, robbery in the third degree is a class D felony, whereas grand larceny in the fourth degree, the highest offense charged in the felony complaint is an class E felony:”

Neither the Court of Appeals nor this Court has directly addressed the issue now before us: whether an SCI that charges an offense for which a defendant was held for action of a grand jury can also, under CPL 195.20 and consistent with New York Constitution article I, § 6, charge a joinable offense of a higher grade or degree than any contained in the felony complaint. * * *

… [T]he New York Constitution article I, § 6 permits prosecution pursuant to an SCI only for “an offense” for which a defendant has been “held for the action of a grand jury”. Such an “offense” includes “the lesser included offenses as well as a greater offense charged in the felony complaint” … , but does not include a greater offense, not charged in the felony complaint, which has additional aggravating elements … . Permitting inclusion in an SCI of an offense of a higher grade than any charged in the felony complaint “would permit circumvention of” the “constitutional imperative” of prosecution by indictment … . People v Perkins, 2024 NY Slip Op 04361, First Dept 9-5-24

Practice Point: Here, a defendant, who waived indictment, pled to a superior court information (SCI) which included an offense greater than any in the corresponding felony complaint. The inclusion in the SCI of an offense greater than any for which the defendant was held for indictment violates the NYS Constitution.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SEXUAL ABUSE COUNT WAS FACIALLY VALID, THE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY RENDERED THE COUNT DUPLICITIOUS, REQUIRING REVERSAL ON THAT COUNT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of one count of sexual abuse, determined, although the count was facially valid, it was rendered duplicitous by the victim’s testimony:

The evidence relative to these charges derived mostly from the victim’s trial testimony, wherein she revealed that she and defendant lived in the same household during the relevant time frame and he touched her inappropriately on several occasions while in the basement of the residence. With respect to count 2, when asked on direct examination whether defendant had his clothes on, the victim answered that he would “sometimes . . . take off his shirt” and “sometimes he would have no shirt on at all” … . The prosecutor then asked the victim whether she remembered “more than one time that [defendant] didn’t have a shirt on” and she stated: “I remember one time that he did not have his shirt on.” On cross-examination, defense counsel asked the victim whether it was true that there were multiple times defendant “took his shirt off,” to which she responded in the affirmative. She then explained that “[i]t was at least two” times and repeated this again when confronted with the fact that, during her grand jury testimony, she stated that defendant had taken his shirt off only once, clarifying that she “meant to say two.”

… Where, as here, “trial testimony provides evidence of repeated acts that cannot be individually related to specific counts in the indictment, the prohibition against duplicitousness has been violated” … . People v McNealy, 2024 NY Slip Op 04230, Third Dept 8-15-24

Practice Point: Where an indictment court charges one incident and the trial testimony indicates there were multiple similar incidents, it is impossible to tell whether the jury was unanimous in convicting under that count. The count was rendered duplicitous by the trial testimony, requiring reversal. 

 

, ,

HERE TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS THAT THE PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES WERE NON-PRETEXTUAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined County Court properly denied Batson challenges to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges:

From the dissent:

Although trial courts are permitted to implicitly determine that the race-neutral explanations offered by the prosecutor are not pretextual … , we find that the language utilized by County Court cannot be construed as making an implicit determination. County Court did not state that it believed the race-neutral reasons offered by the prosecutor; instead, the court indicated that it “believe[d] there’s a race-neutral reason . . . which would permit a . . . peremptory challenge by the People, not subject to Batson.” This language demonstrates that the court only considered whether the People had proffered a race-neutral reason and not whether the race-neutral reason was pretextual as required under the third step of the Batson inquiry, despite defendant’s arguments to this effect … . People v Morgan, 2024 NY Slip Op 04165, Third Dept 8-8-24

Practice Point: As part of a Batson juror challenge, the judge must determine whether the race-neutral reasons for a peremptory challenge are genuine (non-pretextual). Here two dissenters argued the judge did not make that determination.​

 

, ,

A SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT SHOULD INCLUDE THE POTENTIAL FOR REHABILITATION; HERE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND EVIDENCE OF FAMILY SUPPORT WARRANTED A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reducing defendant’s SORA risk level from two to one, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, over an extensive dissent, determined the psychological evidence, evidence of family support, and evidence of defendant’s long-term relationships warranted the downward departure. The nature and weight of the psychological evidence, including test results, is discussed in depth:

Defendant attended college in New Hampshire but left early and did not graduate as a result of grief stemming from the loss of multiple family members. He thereafter remained in New Hampshire and worked as a soccer coach at a local high school. In 2019, defendant cultivated a short-term sexual relationship with a 14-year-old student whom he was coaching; alcohol was involved. He ultimately pleaded guilty in New Hampshire to four counts of felonious sexual assault, and misdemeanor charges related to the provision of alcohol. * * *

The potential for rehabilitation should be recognized and considered in judicial review and imposition of SORA restrictions. As has been stated, “our application of SORA and its [g]uidelines holds the promise of the recognition of rehabilitation so as to incentivize a sex offender to achieve that which this defendant has achieved” … ; this quote applies in full measure here. Through his submission of multiple psychometric test results, expert opinions and expressions of familial support, defendant has demonstrated the presence of multiple mitigating factors not considered by the guidelines. The totality of the circumstances indicate defendant poses a low risk of reoffending. Thus, in the exercise of our independent discretion, to avoid imposing lifetime and very public restrictions of a risk level two offender upon this young defendant (see Correction Law §§ 168-h [1]-[2]; 168-i; 168-l [6] [a]-[b]; 168-q [1]), we grant his motion for a downward departure and classify him as a risk level one sex offender subject to the applicable restrictions, for the requisite 20-year period … . Essentially, where we depart from the dissent is in our willingness to more fully consider the degree of evidence of rehabilitation and the resulting diminished potential for future criminal conduct. People v Waterbury, 2024 NY Slip Op 04169, Third Dept 8-8-24

​Practice Point: Here defendant presented expert psychological testimony, the results of psychological tests and evidence of strong family support at the SORA risk-level-assessment hearing. On appeal the Third Department found the evidence should have been considered by the SORA court because it demonstrated a potential for rehabilitation.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE DECLARED A MISTRIAL AFTER THE JURY’S REPEATED COMMUNICATIONS EXPLAINING THEY COULD NOT REACH A UNANIMOUS VERDICT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should have ordered a mistrial after the jury’s repeated communications stating they could not reach a unanimous verdict:

The jury sent its third note regarding deadlock on the fourth day of deliberations, which not only stated that the jurors were “hopelessly deadlocked,” but also that “[a] unanimous decision would only be able to be achieved by the abandonment” of the jurors’ “firm . . . convictions,” and that “any change in their decisions would be untrue and unjust” … . Thus, the jury unequivocally informed the court that any unanimous verdict would be the result of jurors abandoning their genuine beliefs about the defendant’s guilt or innocence in order to achieve a unanimous verdict, which demonstrated that it would have served no purpose to provide additional instructions to the jury to continue deliberating … . Moreover, portions of the court’s instructions delivered after that note were potentially coercive, including the court’s statements that “some of you are locked into your positions and you’re fixed in those positions and inflexible and that’s contrary to what jurors have to do during jury deliberations,” and that “when you were selected as jurors you promised me that you would deliberate and discuss your views with your other jurors, so if you refuse to deliberate or close off your mind then you’re violating your promise and your oath to me” … . Notably, the jury returned a unanimous verdict later on the same day the court gave those instructions. Thus, under the circumstances, the court should have discharged the jury and declared a mistrial. People v Calixte, 2024 NY Slip Op 04079, Second Dept 7-31-24

Practice Point: Here the jury sent out three articulate and detailed notes explaining they could not reach a unanimous verdict. The judge should have declared a mistrial.

 

, , ,

A WITNESS IS NOT UNAVAILABLE TO TESTIFY AT A TRIAL BASED UPON THE FEAR OF COMMITTING PERJURY DURING THAT TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the judgment and ordering a new trial, determined a witness was not be unavailable to testify at the trial based upon her fear she would commit perjury at the trial:

“A witness may not claim the privilege of the [F]ifth [A]mendment out of fear that he [or she] will be prosecuted for perjury for what he [or she] is about to say. The shield against self-incrimination in such a situation is to testify truthfully, not to refuse to testify on the basis that the witness may be prosecuted for a lie not yet told” … . “Fear of a perjury prosecution can typically form a valid basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment only where the risk of prosecution is for perjury in the witness’ past testimony” … .

“[T]he court focuses inquiry on what a truthful answer might disclose, rather than on what information is expected by the questioner” … . Simply put, the Fifth Amendment “does not permit a witness to invoke the privilege on the ground that he [or she] anticipates committing perjury sometime in the future” … . There is “no doctrine of ‘anticipatory perjury’ ” … . * * *

We … conclude that the court erred in declaring the victim unavailable and allowing her testimony from the first trial to be read to the jury at the retrial. Inasmuch as the victim was the only person who identified defendant as the person who shot her, we cannot conclude that the evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming, and therefore the error cannot be deemed harmless … . People v Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 03973, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The Fifth Amendment does not permit a witness to invoke the self-incrimination privilege on the ground the witness anticipates committing perjury in the future.

 

, ,

THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR APPOINTED TO HANDLE DEFENDANT’S CASE DID NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE COUNTY LAW; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the convictions and dismissed the indictment because the special prosecutor appointed to handle the case did not meet the statutory qualifications:

“County Law § 701 (1) allows a court to appoint a special district attorney in situations where the district attorney is ‘disqualified from acting in a particular case to discharge his or her duties at a term of any court’ ” … . The Court of Appeals, “[a]cknowledging that a court’s authority under County Law § 701 ‘to displace a duly elected [d]istrict [a]ttorney’ raises separation of power concerns, [has] cautioned that ‘[t]his exceptional superseder authority should not be expansively interpreted’ ” … . As relevant here, section 701 (1) (a) explicitly limits the superseding authority of a court to “appoint[ing] some attorney at law having an office in or residing in the county, or any adjoining county, to act as special district attorney.” Where, as here, a court exceeds its authority by appointing a special district attorney who does not meet those statutory requirements, “[t]he indictment must be dismissed to preserve the integrity of a statute designed narrowly by its terms and by its purpose to fill emergency gaps in an elected prosecutorial official’s responsibility” … . People v Callara, 2024 NY Slip Op 03969, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: If the special prosecutor appointed to handle defendant’s case does not meet the qualifications in the County Law, the convictions will be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MENACING AT THE FIRST TRIAL BUT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE MENACING CHARGES WAS ALLOWED IN THE SECOND TRIAL; THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE PRECLUDED PRESENTATION OF THAT EVIDENCE IN THE SECOND TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s acquittal of menacing in his first trial precluded evidence defendant displayed a firearm during a confrontation in the second trial:

At his second trial, the People were permitted to introduce in their case-in-chief, over defendant’s objection, the testimony of an eyewitness that, during a confrontation in a park that occurred prior to the shooting, defendant had pulled out a gun and waved it at the victim, and had cocked the gun and pointed it at the eyewitness. We agree with defendant that, under the circumstances here, the People were collaterally estopped by the earlier verdict from presenting evidence at defendant’s second trial concerning the alleged display of a gun during the earlier confrontation at the park … .

The doctrine of collateral estoppel “operates in a criminal prosecution to bar relitigation of issues necessarily resolved in defendant’s favor at an earlier trial” … . “[W]here the People have had a full and fair opportunity to contest issues, but have failed, it would be inequitable and harassive to again permit the prosecution to establish these same matters, as if the first trial had never taken place” … . Only those facts that were “necessarily decided” by a prior acquittal will have collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent prosecution … . Although it may “normally be impossible to ascertain the exact import of a verdict,” we are charged with giving “a practical, rational reading to the record of the first trial” to determine “whether a rational jury could have grounded its decision on an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration” … .

Here, the two menacing counts alleged that defendant intentionally placed or attempted to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury, or death by displaying what appeared to be a firearm, on the basis of his alleged actions at the park shortly before the murder. The eyewitness’s testimony at the first trial was the only evidence supporting the menacing counts. People v Moore, 2024 NY Slip Op 03941, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Evidence supporting charges of which defendant was acquitted in the first trial cannot be presented in the second trial.

 

, ,

THE STATUTE REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO REGISTER AS A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER BASED ON AN OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION FOR A NONVIOLENT OFFENSE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the statute which required designating defendant a sexually violent offender based upon an out-of-state conviction for a nonviolent offense was unconstitutional as applied to her:

In this proceeding under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant appeals from an order insofar as it designated her a sexually violent offender. Defendant was previously convicted in North Carolina upon her guilty plea of sexual activity by a substitute parent under the theory of aiding and abetting, a felony offense (former NC Gen Stat § 14-27.7 [a]). The conviction required her to register as a sex offender in that state. After defendant moved to New York, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) determined that she was required to register as a sex offender in New York pursuant to Correction Law … .

… [T]he foreign registration clause of Correction Law § 168-a (3) (b) does not withstand constitutional scrutiny as applied to her. Initially, we agree with the People that, although a sexually violent offender designation affects a “liberty interest . . . [that] is substantial” … because it “imposes a stigma that broadly impacts a defendant’s life and ability to participate in society” … , “[t]he right not to have a misleading label attached to one’s serious crime is not fundamental in [the constitutional] sense” … . As a result, defendant’s “constitutional claims [are] subject to [*2]deferential rational basis review” … . That standard of review “is not a demanding” test, but rather “is the most relaxed and tolerant form of judicial scrutiny” … .

Here, defendant established that the People never disputed the nonviolent nature of the sex offense of which defendant was convicted in North Carolina and neither the Board nor the People requested that points be assessed under risk factor 1 for use of violence. Moreover, in support of their position that defendant be designated as a sexually violent offender, the People never argued that the sex offense was the statutory equivalent of a sexually violent offense in New York (see Correction Law § 168-a [3] [b]). In short, the sole reason put forward by the People for seeking the “sexually violent” designation was the operation of the challenged statute. People v Cromwell, 2024 NY Slip Op 03934, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The Correction Law provision requiring a defendant to register as a sexually violent offender for an out-of-state conviction for a nonviolent offense is unconstitutional as applied.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY DENIED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SANDOVAL HEARING, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was erroneously deprived of his right to be present for the Sandoval hearing:

Where a defendant is denied the right to be present during a Sandoval hearing, reversal of defendant’s conviction is required (… see … CPL 260.20), unless “defendant’s presence at the hearing would have been superfluous” … . Here, it cannot be said that defendant’s presence at the hearing would have been superfluous because the court’s ruling was a compromise and thus, it was not “wholly favorable to defendant” … . People v Anderson, 2024 NY Slip Op 04042, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Defendant was erroneously denied his right to be present at the Sandoval hearing, new trial ordered.

 

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