You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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

 

,

Error for Prosecutor to Imply that Communicating with an Attorney Manifests a Consciousness of Guilt (Error Deemed Harmless Here)

The Second department noted that the prosecutor’s comment implying that communicating with an attorney manifests a consciousness of guilt was error:

In response to evidence proffered by the People that the defendant relocated to a motel after the subject shooting, the defendant called as a witness an attorney whom she had retained after the shooting. To rebut the People’s theory that the relocation indicated a consciousness of guilt, the defendant elicited testimony from that attorney that the defendant intended to surrender to the police, but that the police arrested her before she was able to do so. During summation, the prosecutor posed the rhetorical question: “[I]f you didn’t do anything and you don’t know that detectives are looking for you in respect to a shooting, why did you get an attorney?” The defendant correctly contends that this comment was improper, since the defendant’s retention of an attorney was not probative of her consciousness of guilt … . Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the error did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and otherwise does not require reversal … . People v Credle, 2015 NY Slip Op 00548, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

,

No Foundation Provided for Use of a Notarized Statement for Impeachment (As a Prior Inconsistent Statement)

The Second Department determined the trial court had properly prohibited the defense from cross-examining a complaining witness about a notarized statement the witness denied signing.  The court explained the foundation-requirements for admitting a prior inconsistent statement:

The trial court properly precluded the defendant from cross-examining one of the complaining witnesses regarding a notarized statement which she had denied signing, and for which the notary could not be located. “[T]here must be a proper foundation laid for the introduction of prior inconsistent statements of a witness. In order to prevent surprise and give the witness the first opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistency between his [or her] testimony at trial and his [or her] previous statements, he [or she] must first be questioned as to the time, place and substance of the prior statement” … . “If the witness does not admit that he [or she] signed the statement[ ], the genuineness of the signature can be proved by any one or in any legal way. Such proof enables the impeaching party to properly offer the paper in evidence as a part of his [or her] case or, with the permission of the court, at any other stage of the trial” … . Where, as here, the party seeking to admit the writing into evidence has not proven the genuineness of the signature, “the writing cannot be read to the jury, or, provided it can be produced, used as a basis for a cross-examination as to its contents until it is in evidence'” … . People v Haywood, 2015 NY Slip Op 00555, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

Conviction Reversed—Court Denied For Cause Challenge to Biased Juror Without Eliciting an Unequivocal Assurance the Juror Will Be Impartial

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because an admittedly biased juror was not eliminated after defendant’s “for cause” challenge.  (Defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges.):

When a question is raised regarding a prospective juror’s ability to render an impartial verdict, the prospective juror must expressly state in unequivocal terms that “his prior state of mind concerning either the case or either of the parties will not influence his verdict, and he must also state that he will render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence” … . In considering whether such statements are unequivocal, the juror’s testimony must be taken as a whole, and where there remains any doubt, the prospective juror should be discharged for cause … . Thus, when a potential juror states that he or she questions or doubts that he or she can be fair in the case, the trial judge should either elicit some unequivocal assurance of the juror’s ability to be impartial or excuse the juror … .

Here, as the prospective juror stated that she could not believe that police officers would get on the witness stand and lie about a person selling drugs, the court erred in denying the defendant’s challenge for cause without first eliciting some unequivocal assurance of the juror’s ability to be impartial … . People v Harris, 2015 NY Slip Op 00554, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

, ,

Failure to Warn Defendant His Guilty Plea Could Lead to Deportation, Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Decision in Padilla v Kentucky, Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Second Department determined that the failure to notify the defendant prior his guilty plea (in 2000) could be the basis of deportation proceedings did not constitute ineffective of counsel:

On March 31, 2010, the United States Supreme Court held in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356) that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to inform noncitizen clients of the deportation risks of guilty pleas. However, Padilla does not apply retroactively to persons whose convictions became final before Padilla was decided … . Without the benefit of the Padilla rule, the alleged failure of the defendant’s attorney to properly advise him of the possibility that he might be deported as a result of his plea does not constitute deficient performance under the United States or New York Constitutions. At the time that the defendant entered his plea of guilty in 2000, defense counsel’s performance was governed by the rule that “the failure of [defense] counsel to warn [a] defendant of the possibility of deportation [did not] constitute ineffective assistance of counsel” … . People v Taylor, 2015 NY Slip Op 00563, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

,

Police Properly Entered the Apartment (Warrantless Entry) With the Consent of a “Lease Enforcement Officer” Who Believed the Apartment Was Occupied by “Squatters”

Police Properly Entered the Apartment (Warrantless Entry) With the Consent of a “Lease Enforcement Officer” Who Believed the Apartment Was Occupied by “Squatters”

The Third Department determined the police properly made a warrantless entry of the apartment where defendant [Anderson] was staying based upon the consent of a “lease enforcement officer” who believed the apartment was occupied by “squatters.”  The motion to suppress the weapon found near the defendant was, therefore, properly denied:

…John Downey, a lease enforcement officer, informed a police detective that he believed that Anderson’s apartment was vacant and that tenants frequently abandoned their units in the apartment building without providing notice. Downey further explained that he was authorized to enter apartments in order to ensure that they are secure and not occupied by squatters. Downey averred that he provided law enforcement officers with a key to the apartment because he was concerned that someone other than Anderson may have been staying there. When law enforcement arrived at the apartment and knocked on the door, there was no response and no noise was detected from inside the residence. Although it became obvious to the officers, after having entered the apartment, that it was not vacant, inasmuch as an objective view of the evidence adequately demonstrated that the police reasonably relied in good faith upon Downey’s apparent authority to allow entry into the apartment, County Court properly found that the warrantless entry –and resulting seizure of the gun that was in plain view–was not illegal… . People v Edwards, 2015 NY Slip Op 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

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