You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE “ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS” TEST SHOULD BE USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN OUT-OF-STATE NON-SEXUAL CONVICTION CAN BE USED TO ASSESS RISK-LEVEL POINTS UNDER SORA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the “essential elements” test must be used to determine whether a defendant should be assessed risk-level points for non-sexual offenses committed out-of-state. Defendant relocated to New York and was subject to a SORA risk-level assessment based upon a Washington child molestation conviction. Defendant had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in Texas for driving in circles in a grassy area in a park. New York’s DWI statutes do not criminalize such off-road driving. Therefore the Texas conviction should not have been used to assess risk-level points under SORA: In addition the commission of the Washington child molestation offense predated a Washington DWI conviction. Therefore the Washington DWI should not have been used to calculate the risk-level because it was not part of defendant’s “prior criminal history:”

Pursuant to the essential elements test, a court must “compare the elements of the foreign offense with the analogous New York offense to identify points of overlap” and, “where the offenses overlap but the foreign offense also criminalizes conduct not covered under the New York offense, the [court] must review the conduct underlying the foreign conviction to determine if that conduct is, in fact, within the scope of the New York offense” … . … This Court and the other Departments previously have deemed it appropriate to utilize the essential elements test to determine whether a foreign conviction falls within the scope of a New York offense to assess points under any category of risk factor 9 … .. Such application ensures that courts properly assess “prior crimes” and accurately determine a sex offender’s risk level in accordance with acts that the Legislature has deemed apt to criminalize (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 6 [2006]). Consequently, to the extent that we have not expressly held that the essential elements test should be utilized to determine whether a foreign conviction supports the assessment of any points under risk factor 9, we hold so now. People v Pardee, 2024 NY Slip Op 03360, Third Dept 6-20-24

Practice Point: Here the Third Department expressly adopted the “essential elements” test for determining whether an out-of-state DWI can be used to assess risk-level points under SORA. The elements of the Texas DWI statute are different from the elements of New York’s DWI statutes. Defendant’s driving in circles on a grassy area of a park would not constitute DWI in New York. Therefore the Texas conviction should not have been used to assess points.

 

,

ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER VIOLATED RULES IMPOSED BY THE “STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION” (SIST) REGIMEN, HE DID NOT EXHIBIT ANY DANGEROUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; THEREFORE RESPONDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFINED AND SHOULD BE RELEASED AND MANAGED UNDER “SIST” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although respondent sex offender violated some of the rules associated with his released into the community, the violations were not related to sexual behavior. Therefore respondent should not be confined and should be released to the community and managed under SIST (strict and intensive supervision):

It is undisputed that, during the relevant period, respondent made no sexual threats, did not approach any treatment staff in a sexual manner, and did not express any sexual impulses or urges. We agree with our sister department that “in the absence of evidence of sexually inappropriate conduct while on SIST, it becomes incumbent on the State to demonstrate a persuasive link between a nonsexual SIST violation and the offender’s ability to control his sexual behavior” … . “A mere tendency to engage in risky or socially undesirable conduct — even if that conduct provides an opportunity for, or increases the likelihood of, sexual offending — is quintessentially insufficient to establish ‘inability’ under the Michael M. formulation” (George N., 160 AD3d at 31 …). Finally, a respondent’s mere struggling with sexual urges is insufficient to show inability to control … . Matter of State of New York v Anthony R., 2024 NY Slip Op 03392, First Dept 6-20-24

Practice Point: A sexual offender who has not exhibited any dangerous sexual behavior under SIST should be released and management under SIST should be continued. Confinement is not justified by non-sexual SIST violations.

 

,

THE STATUTE REQUIRING THE PEOPLE TO FILE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS IN ORDER TO BE READY FOR TRIAL WENT INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2020; REVERSING THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD A VALID READY-FOR-TRIAL ANNOUNCEMENT MADE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2020, WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE NEW STATUTE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion, determined the new statutory discovery obligations imposed upon the People, effective January 1, 2020, did not affect a valid ready-for-trial announcement made prior to January 1, 2020. The Appellate Division held the new statute required the People to file a Certificate of Compliance to be ready for trial and the failure to do so mandated dismissal on speedy-trial grounds:

On January 1, 2020, amendments to New York’s discovery (CPL art 245) and statutory speedy trial (CPL 30.30) rules went into effect, and the old discovery rules (CPL former art 240) were repealed … . On January 27, the first day of trial, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds, arguing that the People had become unready for trial when the amendments came into effect and had failed to file a certificate of compliance with the new discovery rules (COC) as required by the amendments and announce their readiness before their statutory speedy trial time expired. * * *

There is no evidence, in the plain language of the amendments or the legislative history, that the legislature intended to—or did—revert the People to a state of unreadiness on January 1, 2020. Rather, the amendments specifically tie the COC requirement to the People’s ability to state ready and be deemed ready. Because the legislature established the COC requirement as a condition precedent to declaring ready for trial and did not indicate an intent to undo the People’s prior readiness statements, there is no basis to apply that requirement prospectively to a case such as the present one where the People were in a trial-ready posture when it went into effect. In other words, the People are not required to fulfill a prerequisite to declaring trial readiness when they have already validly declared ready for trial. Accordingly, the only way to apply the COC requirement to this case would be to wholesale invalidate the People’s pre-2020 readiness statement—not to render the People unready as of January 1, 2020. Because the language of the amendments does not “expressly or by necessary implication require” this plainly retroactive application, we cannot conclude that the legislature intended for the COC requirement to apply in this manner … . Consequently, the People are not chargeable for any delay after January 1, 2020, and thus remained within the applicable 181-day statutory speedy trial limit … . People v King, 2024 NY Slip Op 03322, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: Here the People made a valid ready-for-trial announcement before the new discovery statute went into effect on January 1, 2020. The trial started on January 27, 2021, and the defense moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds because the People never filed a certificate of compliance, a new statutory requirement for readiness for trial. The Appellate Division dismissed the case on that ground. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the pre-January 1, 2020, ready-for-trial announcement was unaffected by the new statutory requirements.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RULED THE PEOPLE PROVIDED RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING TWO BLACK JURORS; THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RULED THE HANDCUFFED DEFENDANT’S SHOW-UP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS PROPER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the trial court’s Batson and suppression rulings, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the trial court’s rulings (1) the People demonstrated race-neutral reasons for striking two Black jurors and (2) the show-up identification of the defendant, who was handcuffed, was proper:

Overall, C.C.’s responses gave rise to a reasonable inference that: (1) he viewed the arrest of his cousin for marijuana possession as a crime against his cousin; (2) he viewed the arrest of his cousin as a “raid” by police; and (3) his negative feelings towards police could affect his view of police witnesses in the case, regardless of any contradictory assurances he might have given. These inferences are patently reasonable and the trial court’s determination that the non-discriminatory reasons offered by the People in support of their peremptory strike of C.C. were credible and non-pretextual finds ample support in the record … . * * *

The People expressed concern that K.C.’s job duties would cause her to be inappropriately sympathetic to defendant. K.C.’s job involved determining whether juvenile offenders would be entitled to intake diversion, or face prosecution, and she was previously employed as a caseworker. We have previously recognized that a party may permissibly strike a juror “who works in a certain field . . . because that party believes—for reasons unrelated to the facts of the case—that such individual may have a more sympathetic attitude or view toward the opposing party” … . * * *

Although this Court has stated that a showup procedure in which a suspect is handcuffed and in the presence of police is “suggestive and not preferred” and “presses judicial tolerance to its limits” … , we have concluded that, such a showup is “reasonable under the circumstances” when it is conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime … . When a showup is done as part of “one unbroken chain of events—crime, escape, pursuit, apprehension and identifications” such a procedure is acceptable … . As we have recognized, ” ‘prompt showup identifications by witnesses following a defendant’s arrest at or near the crime scene have been generally allowed” ,,, . Moreover, “[w]hether a crime scene showup is unduly suggestive is a mixed question of law and fact. Thus, if record evidence supports the determination below, this Court’s review is at an end” …. . People v Wright, 2024 NY Slip Op 03320, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: A show-up identification procedure in close geographical and temporal proximity to the crime can be proper, even when the defendant is handcuffed.

 

, ,

AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP, DEFENDANT WAS DETAINED WHILE HIS PAROLE OFFICER WAS CALLED TO THE SCENE; DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS THEN SEARCHED AND HEROIN WAS FOUND; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED UNDER THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD, NOT THE “RIGHT TO INQUIRE” STANDARD APPLIED BY THE SUPPRESSION COURT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, remitting the case for a determination of the suppression motion under the “reasonable suspicion” standard, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined there was a question whether the defendant was illegally detained after a valid traffic stop to allow investigation of a possible parole violation. The parole officer was called to the scene, the defendant’s car was searched, and heroin was found:

The proper standard for detaining an individual beyond “the time reasonably required” to complete a traffic stop is reasonable suspicion … . Given that a traffic stop is a “limited seizure” of the occupants of a vehicle, “[f]or a traffic stop to pass constitutional muster, the officer’s action in stopping the vehicle must be justified at its inception and the seizure must be reasonably related in scope, including its length, to the circumstances which justified the detention in the first instance” … . A “continued involuntary detention of [a] defendant . . . constitute[s] a seizure in violation of their constitutional rights, unless circumstances coming to [the officer’s] attention following the initial stop furnishe[s] . . . reasonable suspicion that they were engaged in criminal activity” … . Likewise, the United States Supreme Court has held that “[a] seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation . . . become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission of issuing a ticket for the violation” … . In this vein, although that “mission” encompasses ” ‘ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop,’ ” it does not include additional measures designed to detect evidence of criminality … . Thus, an otherwise lawful traffic stop may not be prolonged “absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual” … .

… [T]here is record support for the affirmed finding that the traffic stop was justified at its inception, based upon the police officer’s observation that defendant committed a traffic infraction … . However, the courts below evaluated whether the traffic stop was prolonged beyond the time reasonably required for its completion under the founded suspicion standard applicable to the common law right to inquire … , a lesser standard than the reasonable suspicion necessary to prolong a traffic stop. As a result, remittal is necessary to allow for consideration of this issue under the proper standard. People v Thomas, 2024 NY Slip Op 03319, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: After a valid traffic stop, the question whether defendant was properly detained to allow inquiry into suspected crimes unrelated to the traffic infraction is analyzed under the “reasonable suspicion” standard, not the lesser “right to inquire” standard.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF THE INTENT TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S LACK OF CAPACITY TO COMMIT ARSON WAS “1400 DAYS LATE,” THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE LATE NOTICE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissent, determined the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to accept late notice of the intent to present psychiatric evidence as a defense to the arson charge. The defendant had been evaluated and treated for mental illness since childhood. When a new attorney was assigned to the defense, the notice of the intent to present psychiatric evidence was served “1400 days late.” The defense sought to introduce expert testimony to demonstrate defendant did not have the capacity to commit arson at the time of the offense:

We … hold that the trial court’s application of CPL 250.10 precluding Mr. Sidbury’s [defendant’s] psychiatric defense was an abuse of discretion. We have been clear that the governing principle animating CPL 250.10 is “procedural fairness and orderliness” with the intention of “eliminating the element of surprise” for the prosecution … . The statute formulates a procedure for defendants to serve notice of their intent to present psychiatric evidence that is “prepared and presented manageably and efficiently,” such that it allows for “proper notification, adversarial examination, and preclusion when appropriate” … . * * *

Although the statute provides for service of the notice within 30 days of the defendant’s not-guilty plea, the court has discretion to permit service of a late notice “[i]n the interest of justice and for good cause shown” … . Late notice is permissible “at any time prior to the close of evidence”—including after trial has commenced  … .

The decision to permit late notice is within the discretion of the trial court … . That discretion, however, is “not absolute,” because “[e]xclusion of relevant and probative testimony as a sanction for a defendant’s failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement implicates a defendant’s constitutional right to present witnesses in [their] own defense” … . Instead, the trial court must “weigh [the defendant’s constitutional] right against the resultant prejudice to the People from the belated notice” … . People v Sidbury, 2024 NY Slip Op 03318, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: Although service of notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence as a defense should be made within 30 days of the not-guilty plea, the court has the discretion to accept late notice at any time prior to the close of evidence (because the constitutional right to present a defense is at stake).

 

, ,

THE BURGLARY COUNT CHARGED THAT DEFENDANT ENTERED THE VICTIM’S APARTMENT WITH THE INTENT TO “HOLD A KNIFE TO THE VICTIM’S THROAT;” THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ONLY THAT DEFENDANT ENTERED THE APARTMENT WITH THE INTENT TO “COMMIT A CRIME;” DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION TAILORED TO MATCH THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s burglary conviction on ineffective assistance grounds, determined defense counsel should have insisted on a jury instruction which reflected the crime charged in the indictment. The indictment alleged defendant entered the victim’s apartment with the intent to hold a knife to the victim’s throat. The jury was instructed that it need only find defendant unlawfully entered and remained in the victim’s apartment with the intent “to commit a crime” with no mention of holding a knife to the victim’s throat. At trial whether defendant possessed a knife was contested and defendant was acquitted of criminal possession of a weapon and menacing:

In its charge to the jury, County Court made no mention of the People’s theory of the crime as limited by the indictment. The court charged, with respect to the intent element, that the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant entered or remained in the building “with the intent to commit a crime inside the building,” without specifying the intended crime. Defense counsel did not seek a tailored instruction limited to the theory in the indictment.

“There is no requirement that the People allege or establish what particular crime was intended,” to secure a conviction for burglary … . However, “[i]f the People . . . expressly limit[ ] their theory of the ‘intent to commit a crime therein’ element to a particular crime, then they . . . have . . . to prove that the defendant intended to commit that crime” … .

Here, defense counsel failed to seek an appropriately tailored instruction to the jury on burglary in the second degree or object to the burglary charge given. Defense counsel thereby permitted the jury to convict defendant upon a theory of the intent element that was not set forth in the indictment … . People v Mcclendon, 2024 NY Slip Op 03260, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: If the burglary count in the indictment charges that defendant unlawfully entered the victim’s apartment to “hold a knife to the victim’s throat,” the jury instruction should match the language in the indictment. Here the jury was instructed it need only find that defendant entered the apartment “to commit a crime” with no mention of a knife. Whether there was a knife was contested at trial and defendant was acquitted of criminal possession of a weapon and menacing. Under those facts, defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction which matched the knife-related crime charged in the indictment.

 

, ,

OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RULING ON WHETHER THE PEOPLE COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS RE: LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCIPLINARY RECORDS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, sending the matter back for a ruling on whether the People complied with their discovery obligations, over a two-justice dissent, noted that the People cannot use a “screening panel” to review law enforcement disciplinary records:

Defendant … contends that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds (see CPL 30.30). In particular, he contends that the People’s failure to disclose existing disciplinary records of potential law enforcement witnesses for use as impeachment materials … rendered any certificate of compliance (COC) filed pursuant to CPL 245.50 improper and thereby rendered any declaration of trial readiness made pursuant to CPL 30.30 illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock. As the Court of Appeals recently stated in People v Bay, “the key question in determining if a proper COC has been filed is whether the prosecution has ‘exercis[ed] due diligence and ma[de] reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery’ ” … . Due diligence “is a familiar and flexible standard that requires the People to make reasonable efforts to comply with statutory directives” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). “[W]hether the People made reasonable efforts sufficient to satisfy CPL article 245 is fundamentally case-specific, as with any question of reasonableness, and will turn on the circumstances presented” … . “[C]ourts should generally consider, among other things, the efforts made by the prosecution and the prosecutor’s office to comply with the statutory requirements, the volume of discovery provided and outstanding, the complexity of the case, how obvious any missing material would likely have been to a prosecutor exercising due diligence, the explanation for any discovery lapse, and the People’s response when apprised of any missing discovery” … . Although the statute does not require a ” ‘perfect prosecutor,’ ” the Court emphasized that the prosecutor’s good faith, while required, “is not sufficient standing alone and cannot cure a lack of diligence” … . People v Sumler, 2024 NY Slip Op 03307, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: A “screening panel” cannot be used to determined what law enforcement disciplinary records must be supplied to the defense in discovery.

Practice Point: The People’s failure to comply with discovery obligations may render the certificate of compliance improper and the ready-for-trial announcement illusory, warranting dismissal on speedy trial grounds.

 

, ,

THE FAILURE TO RULE ON A MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE MOTION; AN APPELLATE COURT MUST REMIT FOR A RULING BY THE TRIAL COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a ruling, noted that a judge’s failure to rule on a trial order of dismissal motion does not constitute a denial of the motion. Therefore an appellate court cannot rule on the evidentiary issue raised in the motion and must send the matter back for a ruling:

The failure of a trial court to rule on a motion for a trial order of dismissal cannot be deemed a denial of that motion, and thus we must hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a ruling on defendant’s motion … . People v Kohmescher, 2024 NY Slip Op 03287, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Because the failure to rule on a motion for a trial order of dismissal is not a denial of the motion an appellate court cannot address the issue and must remit for a ruling by the trial court.

 

, ,

THE JURY REQUESTED A READBACK OF BOTH THE DIRECT AND THE CROSS; THE JUDGE ONLY PROVIDED A READBACK OF THE DIRECT AND ERRONEOUSLY INDICATED THE TOPIC WAS NOT ADDRESSED ON CROSS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge did not meaningfully respond to a jury note requesting both the direct testimony and the cross-examination on a specific topic. The judge only provided the direct testimony and erroneously told the jury the cross-examination did not address the topic:

… [T]he jury submitted a note requesting, inter alia, a readback of testimony from the victim “about the time she was in the car on Glenwood until she was out of the car from both defense and the DA’s questions.” The court responded to the jury’s request by reading back only testimony from the victim on direct examination about the time that she was inside the car. The court did not order the readback of any cross-examination, which included questioning about inconsistencies in the victim’s account of the incident, including questions about the victim’s earlier statement to the police describing a conversation that she had with defendant outside the car and questions regarding her statement to the police on the day of the incident that the driver of a car attempted to pull her into the car through the window. The court also instructed the jury that only direct examination included questions with respect to the victim being inside the car and, despite the jury’s request to hear questioning from both the prosecution and the defense, the court did not request clarification from the jury whether they wanted to hear the defense’s cross-examination regarding the incident. A meaningful response to a request for a readback of testimony “is presumed to include cross-examination which impeaches the testimony to be read back … . People v Dortch, 2024 NY Slip Op 03283, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here the jury requested a readback of the direct and cross on a specific topic. The judge provided only the direct which did not constitute a meaningful response to the jury note. 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