You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Mistrial Declaration Over Defendant’s Objection Was “Manifestly Necessary”—Double Jeopardy Prohibition Not Triggered

The Second Department determined the trial judge had no choice but to declare a mistrial when defense counsel could not proceed because of a conflict and new counsel needed a two-month adjournment.  Because the mistrial, granted over defendant’s objection, was “manifestly necessary” the double jeopardy prohibition of a second trial was not triggered:

The double jeopardy clauses of the New York State and United States Constitutions protect an accused from multiple prosecutions for the same offense . “In a jury trial, once the jury is empaneled and sworn, jeopardy attaches, and the defendant has a valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal'” … .

When a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, a retrial is precluded unless ” there was manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would be defeated'” … . “Manifest necessity” means a ” high degree of necessity'” based on reasons that are ” actual and substantial'” … . Moreover, before declaring a mistrial, a court must explore all appropriate alternatives and must provide a sufficient basis in the record for resorting to this “drastic measure” …  . Matter of Roey v Lopresto, 2014 NY Slip Op 08340, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

, ,

Retroactive Application of New Regulations Affecting the Revocation of Driver’s Licenses for Alcohol- and Drug-Related Convictions or Incidents Okay—No Vested Right Re: License to Drive

The Third Department determined the new regulations concerning the effect of alcohol- or drug-related convictions or incidents can be applied retroactively because they do not affect a vested right:

“Retroactive statutes are those which impair vested rights or alter past transactions or considerations” … . Here, however, petitioner’s driver’s license is not generally viewed as a vested right, but merely a personal privilege subject to reasonable restrictions and revocation by respondent under her discretionary powers (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 510 [c]; 1192 [2]…). Thus, respondent remained free to apply her most recent regulations when exercising her discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny petitioner’s application for relicensing. This is especially so in light of the rational, seven-month moratorium placed on all similarly-situated applicants for relicensing — i.e., persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions (see NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 46…). Furthermore, inasmuch as the revised regulations operated only to nominally change the effect of petitioner’s past acts on his future eligibility to obtain a driver’s license and was not imposed as punishment but, rather, to promote public safety, respondent’s application of 15 NYCRR 136.5 (b) (2) was proper under these circumstances (see … State Administrative Procedure Act § 202 [6]). Matter of Scism v Fiala, 2014 NY Slip Op 08283, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

, ,

Proper Jury Instructions in False Imprisonment Case Based Upon Detention During the Execution of a Search Warrant Explained

The Second Department set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial on liability and damages because the jury was not properly instructed.  The plaintiff was detained at gunpoint while the police executed a search warrant based upon (apparently wrong) information provided by a confidential informant. The issues which should have been presented to the jury were whether the presumption of probable cause for the search warrant was rebutted and whether the “limited authority” to detain during a search was exceeded:

The Supreme Court erred when it instructed the jury to, in effect, apply the Aguilar-Spinelli test to determine the validity of the search warrant. Under the Aguilar-Spinelli rule, as applied in a criminal prosecution, where probable cause is predicated in whole or in part upon the hearsay statements of an informant, it must be demonstrated that the informant is reliable and had a sufficient basis for his or her knowledge … . By contrast, in a trial on the issue of liability for false imprisonment, there is a presumption of probable cause for the detention which the plaintiff must rebut with evidence that the warrant was procured based upon the false or unsubstantiated statements of a police officer … .* * *

The Supreme Court should have instructed the jury to determine whether the plaintiffs rebutted the presumption of probable cause by establishing that the NYPD presented “false or unsubstantiated statements” to the Criminal Court Judge to procure the issuance of the warrant … . * * *

We further note that police officers executing a search warrant have “limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted” …, and are “privileged to use reasonable force to effectuate the detention of the occupants of the place to be searched” … . Accordingly, if warranted by the evidence presented at the new trial, the Supreme Court should direct the jury to determine, in the context of evaluating whether [plaintiff’s] confinement was privileged, whether the police officers, even if they possessed probable cause to enter the apartment initially, exceeded the scope of their limited authority to detain the occupants of the apartment… . Ali v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08310, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

,

Verdict May Not Be Set Aside Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 330.30 On a (Waivable) Ground Not Preserved by Objection at Trial

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have set aside the verdict pursuant to a CPL 330.30 motion on a ground which was not preserved by an objection.  Supreme Court set aside the assault second conviction on the ground that the indictment, which charged assault first, was improperly amended during trial to assault second.  Because the defendant did not object to the amendment, the issue could not be the basis for setting aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30:

In considering a motion to set aside or modify a verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30(1), a trial court may only consider questions of law, not fact … . Moreover, a trial court may only consider claims of legal error under CPL 330.30(1) where those claims are properly preserved for appellate review … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the alleged amendment of the indictment was not a nonwaivable defect, and the defendant was required to make a timely objection at trial to preserve, for the Supreme Court’s consideration, a claim pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) that the indictment was impermissibly amended … . As the defendant failed to object at trial, he “waived” any challenge to the reduction of the count alleging assault in the first degree …, and the Supreme Court was without authority to set aside the verdict on that ground … . People v Davidson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08346, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

,

SORA Court Must Designate a “Sexually Violent Offender” a Level One Sex Offender

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a dissent, determined that the SORA court does not have the discretion to designate a “sexually violent offender” as anything other than a Level One sex offender.  Here the defendant was convicted of sexual battery in North Carolina.  The North Carolina offense was found to be the equivalent of New York’s Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, a “sexually violent offense” under Correction Law 168-a (3) (a):

“While [the] Court is directed to apply SORA’s Risk Assessment Guidelines . . ., the statutory definition of sexually violent offender, namely, a sex offender convicted of one of several enumerated sexually violent offenses, does not allow for a discretionary determination” … . Thus, although the “level suggested by the RAI [risk assessment instrument] is merely presumptive and a SORA court possesses the discretion to impose a lower or higher risk level if it concludes that the factors in the RAI do not result in an appropriate designation” …, the Court of Appeals has observed that “since 2002, SORA has compelled a defendant convicted of a sexually violent offense’ to register at least annually for life (Correction Law § 168-h [2]; see Correction Law § 168-a [3][a][7]; [b]; L 2002, ch 11, § 13). People v Bullock, 2014 NY Slip Op 08265, 1st Dept 11-25-14

 

,

Anonymous Tip Alone, In the Absence of “Predictive Information,” Sufficient to Provide “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying a Vehicle Stop

The Court of Appeals, in a short memorandum decision followed by lengthy concurring/dissenting opinions, determined that anonymous tips were sufficient to justify a vehicle stop in two cases (tips alleged possession of a weapon), but insufficient in a third case (tip alleged driver was sick or intoxicated). The concurring/dissenting opinions dealt with whether the “Aguilar-Spinelli” test or the “totality of the circumstances” test should be applied where reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) was required to justify a vehicle stop, and whether an anonymous tip alone, in the absence of so-called “predictive information,” could be sufficient to justify a vehicle stop.  The significance of the decision is that an anonymous tip alone was found sufficient, under both the “Aguilar-Spinelli” and “totality of the circumstances” tests, in two of the three cases:

Regardless of whether we apply a totality of the circumstances test or the Aguilar-Spinelli standard (see Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 [1969]; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 [1964]), there is record support for the lower courts’ findings that the stops were lawful in People v Argyris and People v DiSalvo. The police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendants’ vehicle based on the contents of a 911 call from an anonymous individual and the confirmatory observations of the police. Specifically, because sufficient information in the record supports the lower courts’ determination that the tip was reliable under the totality of the circumstances, satisfied the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test for the reliability of hearsay tips in this particular context and contained sufficient information about defendants’ unlawful possession of a weapon to create reasonable suspicion, the lawfulness of the stop of defendants’ vehicle is beyond further review. Furthermore, under these circumstances, the absence of predictive information in the tip was not fatal to its reliability … .

In People v Johnson, whether evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances or under the Aguilar-Spinelli framework, the reliability of the tip was not established. The caller’s cursory allegation that the driver of the car was either sick or intoxicated, without more, did not supply the sheriff’s deputy who stopped the car with reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving while intoxicated (see generally People v DeBour …) . Although the deputy observed defendant commit a minor traffic infraction, this did not authorize the vehicle stop because he was outside his geographical jurisdiction at the time of the infraction (see CPL 140.10 [2] [a]), and defendant’s actions in committing the violation did not elevate the deputy’s suspicion sufficiently to justify the stop of defendant’s car. People v Argyris, 2014 NY Slip Op 08220, CtApp 11-25-14

 

Defendant’s Inability to Articulate a Reason for the Withdrawal of His Plea Was a Proper Basis for Refusal of His Request for An Adjournment of Sentencing to Consider Withdrawal of the Plea

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined defendant’s request for an adjournment of sentencing to consider whether he should withdraw his plea was properly denied (despite the absence of prejudice to the People) because defendant was unable to articulate a reason for withdrawing the plea:

Whether to grant an adjournment is within Supreme Court’s discretion … . Based upon the colloquy at sentencing, defendant had more than a fair amount of time to speak with counsel regarding his interest in withdrawing his plea. Although defendant was out of custody for two months, having been released on his own recognizance following his plea allocution, the record reflects that he only contacted defense counsel the day before sentencing in order to discuss his plea concerns. Despite defense counsel’s inability to meet with defendant that day, defense counsel stated during sentencing that she had spoken with defendant that morning. People v Spears, 2014 NY Slip Op 08221, CtApp 11-25-14

 

,

Indictment Rendered Duplicitous By Trial Evidence Is Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—The Error Must Therefore Be Preserved by an Objection to Be Raised on Appeal

Resolving a split among the appellate division departments, the Court of Appeals determined that an indictment rendered duplicitous by the trial evidence is not a “mode of proceedings” error and the error must therefore be preserved in order to raise it on appeal. The indictment charged one count of attempted murder.  But the evidence presented two different occurrences to which the single count could apply:

The [1st] and [2nd] Departments have held that where it is claimed that the trial evidence has rendered a count duplicitous, the issue must be preserved for review … . The [4th] Department, however, has held that duplicity created by trial evidence violates a defendant’s right to be tried and convicted only of the crimes and theories charged in the indictment, which is a fundamental and non-waivable right, and that such error also violates a defendant’s right under CPL 310.80 to a unanimous verdict, and that preservation is unnecessary … .

As we held in People v Alvarez (20 NY3d 75, 81 [2012], cert denied — US &mdash, 133 S Ct 1736 [2013]), in relation to the constitutional right to a public trial, “preservation of public trial claims is still required. Bringing a public trial violation to a judge’s attention in the first instance will ensure the timely opportunity to correct such errors” … . Therefore, defendant’s argument that he need not preserve an issue that has constitutional significance is unconvincing.

Any uncertainty could have easily been remedied with an objection during opening statements, the witness testimony, or to the jury charge. Requiring preservation will prevent unnecessary surprise after the conduct of a complete trial. Accordingly, we hold that issues of non-facial duplicity, like those of facial duplicity, must be preserved for appellate review. People v Allen, 2014 NY Slip Op 08222, CtApp 11-25-14

 

,

The Failure of the Record to Indicate Whether Notes from the Jury Were Properly Addressed by the Court Constitutes a “Mode of Proceedings” Error

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, over a partial dissent, determined the failure of the record to indicate whether notes from the jury were properly addressed by the court (pursuant to People v O’Rama, 88 NY2d 270) constituted “mode of proceedings” errors requiring reversal in the absence of preservation:

Although not every violation of CPL 310.30 is immune from normal preservation principles …, a failure to apprise counsel about the specific contents of a substantive note from a deliberating jury violates the fundamental tenants of CPL 310.30 and qualifies as a mode of proceedings error … . The record therefore must indicate compliance with adequate procedures under O’Rama because reviewing courts “cannot assume” that the proper procedure was utilized when the record is devoid of information as to how jury notes were handled … . The “presumption of regularity” … cannot salvage an … error of this nature … . People v Silva, 2014 NY Slip Op 08215, CtApp 11-24-14

 

Defendant’s Conviction Properly Reversed Because the Verdict Was Inconsistent/Repugnant—Charge Which Was the Subject of Conviction in the Inconsistent/Repugnant Verdict Can Be Presented to a New Grand Jury

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined that defendant’s conviction was properly reversed because the verdict was inconsistent/repugnant, but that the People should be allowed to resubmit that charge to a new grand jury. Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime, but the jury acquitted defendant of manslaughter in the first degree.  Because, to aquit, the jury must have found that at least one of the elements of manslaughter in the first degree was not proven, the manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime necessarily suffered from the same failure of proof.  The People argued that the jury instructions gave the jurors the impression they could acquit on the non-hate-crime manslaughter and still find the defendant guilty of the hate-crime manslaughter:

The rationale for the repugnancy doctrine is that the defendant cannot be convicted when the jury actually finds, via a legally inconsistent split verdict, that the defendant did not commit an essential element of the crime … . Given that premise, “a verdict is repugnant only if it is legally impossible — under all conceivable circumstances — for the jury to have convicted the defendant on one count but not the other,” and, “[i]f there is a possible theory under which a split verdict could be legally permissible, it cannot be repugnant, regardless of whether that theory has evidentiary support in a particular case” … .

Accordingly, repugnancy does not depend on the evidence presented at trial or the record of the jury’s deliberative process, and “[t]he instructions to the jury will be examined only to determine whether the jury, as instructed, must have reached an inherently self-contradictory verdict” … . In making these determinations, it is inappropriate for the reviewing court to “attempt to divine the jury’s collective mental process” … . “Jurors are allowed to compromise, make mistakes, be confused or even extend mercy when rendering their verdicts” … . * * *

There is no constitutional or statutory provision that mandates dismissal for a repugnancy error. Given that New York’s repugnancy jurisprudence already affords defendants greater protection than required under the Federal Constitution, permitting a retrial on the repugnant charge upon which the jury convicted, but not on the charge of which the jury actually acquitted defendant, strikes a reasonable balance. This is particularly so given that a reviewing court can never know the reason for the repugnancy. Accordingly, the People may resubmit the crime of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime to a new grand jury … . People v DeLee, 2014 NY Slip Op 08212, CtApp 11-24-14

 

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