You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Insufficient Evidence Defendant Shared the Intent of the Seller of Heroin—Conviction Under an “Acting in Concert” or “Accomplice” Theory Reversed

Using its “interests of justice” jurisdiction over an unpreserved error, the Fourth Department determined the evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s conviction under an “acting in concert” or “accomplice” theory.  There was insufficient evidence the defendant shared the intent to sell heroin:

“To establish an acting-in-concert theory in the context of a drug sale, the People must prove not only that the defendant shared the requisite mens rea for the underlying crime but also that defendant, in furtherance of the crime, solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal in the commission of the crime . . . The key to our analysis is whether a defendant intentionally and directly assisted in achieving the ultimate goal of the enterprise–—the illegal sale of a narcotic drug” … .

We conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant acted in concert with the codefendant to sell heroin to the buyer inasmuch as he did nothing “more than simply direct the [buyer] to a location where [she] could purchase [heroin]” … . “While this evidence certainly demonstrated that the defendant was able to identify a local purveyor of narcotics, it did not show . . . that he shared the seller’s intent to bring the transaction about . . . [Indeed], by merely responding to the [buyer’s] inquiry as to who had drugs for sale, the defendant did nothing to solicit or request, much less demand[,] importune[, or assist in] the illicit sale” … . We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the indictment. People v Davila, 2015 NY Slip Op 00016, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Robbery Petition Jurisdictionally Defective—No Nonhearsay Identification of Respondent As the Perpetrator

The Third Department determined the petition charging respondent with the equivalent of robbery in the second degree and petit larceny was jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed, even though respondent admitted to the charged acts and did not seek dismissal of the petition.  Although the petition was supplemented by a video showing the person alleged to have committed the robbery and a letter identifying the respondent as that person, the letter was unsworn and unsigned:

A juvenile delinquency petition must contain “a plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without allegations of an evidentiary nature, asserts facts supporting every element of the crime charged and the respondent's commission thereof” (Family Ct Act § 311.1 [3] [h]…). “A juvenile delinquency petition that fails to contain non-hearsay allegations . . . establish[ing] . . . every element of each crime charged and the respondent's commission thereof is both legally insufficient and jurisdictionally defective” … . Finally, notwithstanding respondent's admission to the charged acts in Family Court and his failure to seek the dismissal of the petition, his assertion that the petition is facially insufficient can be considered for the first time on appeal as such claim regards a nonwaiveable jurisdictional defect … .

Although the statements in the victim's deposition constitute nonhearsay allegations establishing that property was forcibly stolen from him, the deposition does not establish that respondent was the individual who committed such acts. Nor do the video image and … letter identifying respondent as the individual wearing the blue jacket depicted therein cure the evidentiary deficiencies that render the petition invalid. In particular, the video image shows, among other things, a male wearing a blue jacket with a white-striped sleeve that matches the description provided in the victim's report; however, the image itself does nothing to connect respondent to the robbery. Moreover, as [the] letter to the investigating police officer identifying respondent as the person wearing a blue jacket with white stripes on the sleeve was unsigned and unsworn, it does not constitute a nonhearsay identification of respondent as the person who committed the charged acts, thereby rendering the petition facially invalid … . Matter of Jayquan Vv, 2014 NY Slip Op 09086, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


 

Only the Board of Parole Has the Authority to Impose Conditions On Postrelease Supervision/Fine or Restitution Imposed Without Having Been Discussed at Sentencing Must Be Stricken—Case Remitted

The Third Department noted that County Court should not have imposed conditions upon defendant's postrelease supervision because only the Board of Parole has that power.  The Third Department also noted that County Court should not have imposed a fine or restitution which were not mentioned during the plea proceedings, but the order of protection, which was discussed, should stand:

because only the Board of Parole is authorized to impose the conditions of a term of postrelease supervision (…Penal Law § 70.45 [3]; Executive Law §§ 259-c [2]; 259-i [3], [4]), County Court erred to the extent that it imposed certain conditions of defendant's postrelease supervision at sentencing and the conditions should be stricken. Similarly, inasmuch as neither a fine nor restitution was mentioned at the plea proceedings, the matter must be remitted to allow County Court to either impose the sentence that was negotiated or to give defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea before imposing the enhanced sentence … .

In contrast, while only an order of protection against the victim was discussed during the plea agreement, “[o]rders of protection are not punitive in nature and are not necessarily dependent on, or the result of, a plea agreement” … . Accordingly, County Court did not err when it imposed an order of protection in favor of the victim and her family at sentencing and, notwithstanding this Court's determination to remit this matter, the order of protection remains in place. People v Curry, 2014 NY Slip Op 09069, 3rd Dept 12-31-14

 

, ,

Failure to Move to Withdraw Plea, and Thereby Preserve the Issue for Appeal, Did Not Prohibit Appeal Here—Defendant Was Wrongly Informed by the Court and Counsel that the Denial of His Speedy Trial Motion Would Be Appealable After the Plea

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court and vacated defendant's guilty plea because defendant was wrongly informed by the court and counsel that his statutory speedy trial issue would survive the guilty plea (for appeal).  Under the circumstances, the court determined the failure to preserve the error by moving to withdraw the plea did not prohibit the appeal:

The People concede that an essential term of the plea bargain was the parties' understanding that defendant would retain the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. Defendant was thereafter sentenced … . Defendant now appeals, arguing that his plea was involuntarily entered because his counsel and County Court erroneously informed him that a statutory CPL 30.30 claim would survive a plea of guilty.

Initially, we consider whether defendant was required to preserve this claim by appropriate postallocution motion (see CPL 220.60 [3]; 440.10). While a challenge to the validity of a guilty plea is generally not preserved for appellate review unless it was first raised in the trial court …, the Court of Appeals has recognized that “where a defendant has no practical ability to object to an error in a plea allocution which is clear from the face of the record, preservation is not required” … . Here a CPL 440.10 motion was unavailable because the error is clear from the face of the record; similarly a CPL 220.60 (3) motion was practically unavailable because “'defendant [could] hardly be expected to move to withdraw his plea on a ground of which he ha[d] no knowledge'” … . Inasmuch as defendant–due to the inaccurate advice of his counsel and the trial court–did not know during the plea and sentencing proceedings that his statutory speedy trial claim would be forfeited as a direct consequence of his plea …, preservation was not required … . Moreover, under these circumstances, we agree with defendant that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary and, accordingly, we reverse and vacate the plea … . People v Williams, 2014 NY Slip Op 09067, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


,

Trial Testimony Rendered an Indictment Count Duplicitous Requiring Dismissal/Sexual Abuse First Degree Is Not a Lesser Included Offense Re: a Course of Sexual Conduct Against a Child First Degree

The Third Department determined that an indictment-count rendered duplicitous by the trial testimony should have been dismissed, and an indictment-count was wrongly amended because the new charge was not a lesser included offense re: the original charge:

As pertinent here, the crime of criminal sexual act in the first degree requires proof that the defendant engaged in oral sexual conduct with another person who is less than 11 years old, and oral sexual conduct includes “contact between . . . the mouth and the vulva or vagina” (Penal Law § 130.00 [2] [a]; see Penal Law § 130.50 [3]). The challenged count charged defendant with this crime based upon the victim's grand jury testimony that defendant had caused the victim to use her mouth to make contact with defendant's vaginal area on a single occasion in 2004. At trial, however, the victim testified that defendant caused her to engage in this conduct multiple times during the pertinent time period, and that she did not remember any specific time when it had happened. … Unfortunately, the … testimony regarding multiple acts made it impossible to ascertain the particular act upon which the jury verdict was based. We are therefore required, despite the utterly heinous nature of the acts the victim described, to reverse defendant's conviction on this charge; further, the challenged count must be dismissed… . …

While the People may seek to amend an indictment at any time during trial to correct “matters of form, time, place, names of persons and the like,” such an amendment may not alter the theory of prosecution reflected in the evidence before the grand jury (CPL 200.70 [1]; see CPL 200.70 [2]…). Further, a court may submit to a jury a lesser included offense of a crime charged in an indictment provided that the elements of the two crimes are such that “it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly committing the lesser offense by the same conduct [and] there [is] a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater” … . * * *

A crime is a lesser included offense of a charge of a higher degree only when in all circumstances, not only in those presented in the particular case, it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly, by the very same conduct, committing the lesser offense … . It is possible for a defendant to engage in an act of sexual conduct within the scope of the crime of course of sexual conduct against a child through an act of sexual contact, defined in pertinent part as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party” (Penal Law § 130.00 [3]). However, a defendant could also commit an act of sexual conduct within the scope of the originally-charged offense by an act of “sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct, [or] aggravated sexual contact” (Penal Law § 130.00 [10]). The definitions of these acts do not include any element of intent; thus, it is possible for a defendant to commit an act that constitutes sexual conduct without the purpose of gratifying anyone's sexual desire that is a required element of sexual contact (see Penal Law § 130.00 [1], [2] [a], [b]; [11]…). Therefore, as it is possible to commit course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree without also committing sexual abuse in the first degree by the same conduct, defendant's conviction on that charge must be reversed, and the amended indictment count must be dismissed … . People v Baker, 2014 NY Slip Op 09068, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


Unsworn Juror Properly Dismissed Based Upon the “Two-Hour-Trial-Delay” Rule

The First Department determined the dismissal of a juror based on transportation problems which would delay the trial more than two hours was proper.  Apparently none of the jurors had been sworn at the time of the dismissal. Because the standards for dismissing a juror are higher for sworn, as opposed to unsworn, jurors, the fact that the juror was unsworn was of no consequence:

…[D]efendant had no objection to a delay in swearing the jurors after the completion of jury selection, and thus effectively “agreed to create a category of jurors, i.e., selected but unsworn jurors, about which the Criminal Procedure Law is silent as to criteria for discharge” … . The record reveals that the court merely used CPL 270.35 as a guideline in deciding whether to delay the trial by waiting for the juror. In any event, “[t]he power to excuse an unsworn juror is much broader than the statutorily limited power to discharge a sworn juror . . . .” … . Therefore, if the criteria set forth in CPL 270.35 for the dismissal of a sworn juror have been met, then, a fortiori, the same considerations would warrant dismissal of a selected but unsworn juror … .

“The Court of Appeals has held that the two-hour rule' gives the court broad discretion to discharge any juror whom it determines is not likely to appear within two hours” … . Using the two-hour rule as a guideline, it is clear that the court providently exercised its discretion in replacing the juror with an alternate … . People v Sanchez, 2014 NY Slip Op 09031, 1st Dept 12-30-14


,

Testimony Insufficient to Overcome Presumption Photo Arrays, Which Were Not Preserved, Were Unduly Suggestive—Subsequent Line-Up, Which Included Persons Much Older than Defendant, Was Unduly Suggestive—New Trial Ordered

The Second Department determined both identification procedures were unduly suggestive and ordered a new trial.  The People did not preserve the photo arrays and the testimony about the photo arrays was insufficient to overcome the presumption the arrays were suggestive.  The subsequent line-up included persons much older that the 18-year-old defendant and, therefore, was unduly suggestive:

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The People's failure to preserve the original photographic arrays viewed by the complainants gave rise to a presumption of suggestiveness, and the People did not present sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption … . The fact that the police failed to preserve the arrays viewed by the complainants does not warrant suppression in and of itself. However, the detective's testimony at the suppression hearing as to how the computerized procedure operated was insufficiently detailed to establish its fairness … . The detective gave inconsistent testimony regarding what age criteria he entered in the computer system to generate each photo array. Furthermore, he did not recall how many screens either complainant viewed before each of them recognized the defendant, or how long it took each to make an identification. Therefore, the evidence did not overcome the presumption that the arrays were suggestive … . Although the police had not yet focused on any particular suspect, it cannot be said that the sheer volume of photographs viewed was sufficient to dispel any inference of suggestiveness, as it is unknown how many photographs were viewed by the complainants … .

We need not address whether the subsequent lineup was sufficiently attenuated in time from the photo identification procedure to nullify any possible taint, because the lineup procedure was also unduly suggestive … . While there is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance, the other individuals in the lineup should sufficiently resemble the defendant so that there is no substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification … . Upon our review of a photograph of the lineup viewed by the complainants, it is apparent that the defendant and one of the fillers appear to be of similar ages, but the other three fillers appear visibly older than the defendant … . The age disparity was sufficiently apparent as to orient the viewer toward the defendant as a perpetrator of the crimes charged … . People v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 09024, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

“Detained Sex Offender,” Under Article 10, Applies Equally to Lawfully and Unlawfully Detained Sex Offenders

In the course of affirming the finding that appellant was a dangerous sex offender who must be civilly confined, the Second Department noted that Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, which applies to “detained sex offenders,” applies equally to lawfully and unlawfully detained sex offenders.  The court went on to briefly describe the relevant analytical criteria and proof burden:

The appellant's contention that this proceeding was “jurisdictionally flawed” because he did not meet the definition of a detained sex offender is without merit. The appellant was incarcerated upon his conviction of attempted sodomy in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 110.00 and former Penal Law § 130.50 at the time that this proceeding was commenced (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[g][1]). The Court of Appeals has made it clear that the statutory language of Mental Hygiene Law article 10 does not distinguish between lawfully and unlawfully detained sex offenders … . * * *

A “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” is defined under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 as “a person who is a detained sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the person is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[e]). The State must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]). Matter of State of New York v Abdul A, 2014 NY Slip OP 09006, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

Civil Forfeiture Should Not Have Been Made Part of Defendant’s Sentence In the Absence of Defendant’s Voluntary Agreement

The Second Department noted that civil forfeiture should not have been imposed as part defendant's criminal sentence in the absence of defendant's voluntary agreement:

In appropriate circumstances, the voluntary settlement of a potential civil forfeiture action pursuant to CPLR article 13-A (see CPLR 1311) may be made a lawful condition of a negotiated plea (see CPL 220.50[6]), and an order of forfeiture pursuant to a valid settlement of a civil forfeiture claim may be included as part of the judgment of conviction (see Penal Law § 60.30). Civil forfeiture, however, is not an authorized component of a criminal sentence.

Here, the plea minutes do not reflect that the defendant voluntarily agreed to the civil forfeiture of his mobile telephone and $900 cash as a condition of the plea … . Then, when the defendant refused to sign the forfeiture documents at the time of sentencing, the County Court improperly imposed civil forfeiture as a portion of the criminal sentence. Accordingly, under the particular circumstances of this case, as the defendant correctly contends, the portion of the sentence which imposed the civil forfeiture of the defendant's mobile telephone and $900 cash must be vacated … . People v Carmichael, 2014 NY Slip Op 09012, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

T-Shirts With the Victim’s Photo Worn by Family Members During the Murder Trial Did Not Deprive Defendant of a Fair Trial

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, over a dissent, determined that defendant was not denied a fair trial because the victim's family wore T-shirts “remembering” the victim in the courtroom:

The court stated that “it would be appropriate to make a better record of what the shirt was. It was [a] white tee shirt with a silk screen with a picture of the deceased with some written language on it.” The court stated that the shirts “weren't inflammatory.” The court had “noticed that shirt” previously, but it “couldn't read what was written on it.” The court stated that the members of the Walton family “sat in the second row of the audience” and that the T-shirts were “not flauntily [sic] displayed in front of the jury, nor . . . did any members of the family bring undue attention to [them].” The court further stated that “most of the members of the family had an outer garment on top of the tee-shirt” so that the jury “wasn't even capable of seeing the entire thing.” The court noted that “[w]hen counsel made the objection, [it] responded and made a record at that time indicating that [it] saw nothing wrong with those shirts.” The court concluded that the conduct of Walton's family had “not inflamed” the jury.

A criminal defendant's right to a trial by an impartial jury is guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions (see US Const, Sixth Amend; NY Const, art I, § 1). “The requirement that a jury's verdict must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial goes to the fundamental integrity of all that is embraced in the constitutional concept of trial by jury” … . “[O]ne accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial” … .  * * *

…[A] trial free from a “coercive . . . atmosphere” is a “fundamental principle of due process [that] is well established” … . It has long been recognized in this State that such an atmosphere of coercion may arise through the conduct of spectators: “[i]t is not to be tolerated that men [or women] should go into such a place and manifest their feelings, prejudices or passions, for the purpose of exerting an influence upon those who sit in judgment upon the rights of parties” … .

However, “[t]he safeguards of juror impartiality . . . are not infallible [and] it is virtually impossible to shield jurors from every contact or influence that might theoretically affect their vote” … . “Due process means a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it, and a trial judge ever watchful to prevent prejudicial occurrences and to determine the effect of such occurrences when they happen” … .

A trial court, which is in the best position to detect and evaluate the danger that spectator conduct may present to the integrity of the trial process, has a constitutional duty to monitor the atmosphere of the courtroom to ensure that the jury is not exposed to spectator conduct that poses a coercive threat to the jury's ability to remain impartial (see US Const, Sixth Amend; NY Const, art I, § 1…). * * *

… [W]hether any particular conduct, or a court's response to it, has violated a defendant's right to an impartial jury, depends on the particular circumstances of each case … . Such circumstances may include the nature of the crime and the evidence adduced at trial, the nature of the spectator conduct, and the degree to which the jury was exposed to such conduct. It is not necessary for an actual prejudicial effect on the jury to be established … . Ultimately, “the question is whether the [spectator conduct] presents an unacceptable risk . . . of impermissible factors coming into play in the jury's consideration of the case” … . People v Nelson, 2014 NY Slip OP 09019, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

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