You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Evidence of Prior Crimes Improperly Admitted to Prove Identity and Intent—There Was No Unique Modus Operandi Which Would Prove Identity and Intent Could Be Inferred from the Commission of the Acts Charged

The Second Department reversed defendant’s convictions because the trial court allowed evidence of prior uncharged crimes to provide identity and intent.  The Second Department explained that the crimes did not have a unique modus operandi which could demonstrate the identity of the perpetrator, and the intent to commit the crime (burglary) could readily be inferred from the commission of the acts charged:

Evidence of another crime committed by the defendant, not charged in the indictment, is not admissible if it tends only to demonstrate the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged and cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case … . However, where the proffered evidence is relevant to some material fact in the case, other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged, it is not to be excluded merely because it shows that the defendant had committed other crimes … . Thus, evidence of other crimes may be admitted to show, among other things, motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan, or the identity of the guilty party … . Here, the County Court granted the People’s application to admit the subject evidence to establish the defendant’s identity through a unique modus operandi and to establish the defendant’s intent.

The identity exception to the Molineux rule “is used in limited circumstances, when the defendant employs some unique, unusual, or distinctive modus operandi in an uncharged crime that is relevant to proving his identity as the perpetrator of the crime charged” … . Although identity was at issue in this case …, the People failed to identify any distinctive modus operandi relevant to proving the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the crimes charged. In order to identify the defendant by a distinctive modus operandi, “it is not sufficient to show that he has committed similar acts if the method used is not uncommon,” as such a showing “would be of little probative value in determining whether he committed the crimes charged, and the prejudice would be obvious” … . * * *

Nor was the subject evidence properly admitted under the intent exception to the Molineux rule. Evidence of prior misconduct to prove intent is unnecessary where intent may be easily inferred from the commission of the act itself … . Under the circumstances here, the defendant’s intent could be easily inferred from his acts alone … . Moreover, the defendant did not contest the element of intent before the jury, but rather, denied that he was the person who attempted the burglaries … . The evidence therefore was improperly ruled admissible. People v Wright, 2014 NY Slip Op 07003, 2nd Dept 10-15-14

 

,

Prosecution Failed to Prove the Requisite Intent and Materiality in a Perjury Case

In reversing defendant’s (Hadid’s) conviction for perjury, the Second Department determined there was insufficient evidence defendant testified with the requisite intent and there was insufficient evidence the allegedly perjurious statement was “material.” The alleged perjury was testimony by the defendant at the trial of one Kargu. The decision illustrates the stringent proof requirement in a perjury case:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution … , we find that it was legally insufficient to establish Hadid’s guilt of perjury in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt … . As a matter of law, the evidence failed to establish that Hadid had made a false statement under oath. To prove falsity, the prosecution must show that the witness was intentionally, rather than mistakenly, testifying falsely … . To determine intent, the court will look at whether the statement at issue related to a memorable fact, the significance of the event at the time it occurred, the line of inquiry of the examiner, and whether a fact was deliberately concealed if concealment is alleged … . * * *

The People’s also failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Hadid’s statements were material to the Kargu trial … . ” [T]he test of materiality is whether the false testimony was capable of influencing the tribunal on the issue before it'” … .

Contrary to the prosecution’s contention, neither Hadid’s statements at trial nor his credibility were material to Kargu’s guilt or nonguilt … . People v Hadid, 2014 NY Slip Op 06842, 2nd Dept 10-8-14

 

,

Threat and Insults Insufficient to Establish Appellant Was Initial Aggressor

The Second Department determined that the findings that the juvenile appellant had committed acts which would have constituted assault and menacing had the appellant been an adult were against the weight of the evidence. The court determined the appellant was not the initial aggressor and the appellant had acted in self defense.  The court explained that insults can not be the basis of an “initial aggressor” finding:

The defense of justification is available where, inter alia, the actor is acting in self-defense and the actor was not the initial aggressor … . An actor is not the initial aggressor where his or her conduct consists of “mere insults as opposed to threats” … . Where this defense is raised, the presentment agency must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law §§ 25.00, 35.00; Family Ct Act § 303.3).

Here, although the evidence established that the appellant verbally threatened to “slap the glasses off [the complainant’s] face,” the complainant testified that the appellant made this threat before the situation degenerated into a physical fight. Moreover, this type of threat, in the context in which it was uttered, did not constitute the type of threat that would support the conclusion that the appellant was the initial aggressor … . Similarly, although the appellant admitted to insulting the complainant, those insults, considered either alone or in connection with the above-described threat, were not sufficient to make the appellant the initial aggressor in the altercation … .  Matter of Mondy E, 2014 NY Slip Op 06821, 2nd Dept 10-8-14

 

, ,

Defendant Did Not Forfeit His Right to Counsel by Making Four Applications for Reassignment of Assigned Counsel/Evidence of Burglary and Criminal Mischief Insufficient–Possession of Stolen Items Not Enough

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding that defendant had not forfeited his right to counsel because he had made four applications for reassignment of assigned counsel.  The court also determined the possession of stolen items removed in time from the burglary, without more, was not enough to support the burglary and criminal mischief convictions.  With respect to the “forfeiture of the right to counsel,” the court explained:

The record does not support a finding that the defendant forfeited the right to counsel. Where a criminal defendant moves for reassignment of counsel as a mere dilatory tactic, that application may properly be denied … . However, a finding of a forfeiture of the right to counsel is an “extreme, last [ ] resort” … . Here, the record does not show that the defendant engaged in any conduct warranting a forfeiture finding. Rather, the record shows that, at most, he engaged in dilatory conduct, refused to cooperate with his attorneys and was argumentative, and at one point “yelled” at one of his attorneys in an incident characterized by the Supreme Court as a “heated exchange.” Further, it is undisputed that the defendant did not validly waive the right to counsel. Indeed, the record shows that he consistently sought the assistance of assigned counsel.

The defendant’s conduct, as reflected by the record, did not support or justify the Supreme Court’s ruling, which forced the defendant to proceed to trial without the benefit of counsel … . People v Isaac, 2014 NY Slip Op 06844, 2nd Dept 10-8-14

 

,

Legal Underpinning of the “Fellow Officer” Rule Explained

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied.  The defendant’s arrest was based upon a transmission to the arresting officers but the prosecution did not introduce any evidence of the identity of the transmitting officer. The court offered an in-depth explanation of the “fellow officer” rule:

“Under the fellow officer rule, a police officer can make a lawful arrest even without personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, so long as the officer is acting upon the direction of or as a result of communication with’ a fellow officer . . . in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest” … . Probable cause exists when “an officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed” … . At a suppression hearing, the prosecution has the burden of establishing that the officer who transmitted the information had probable cause … .

The fellow officer rule is a “straightforward application” of the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test … , which New York courts use to assess whether hearsay information is sufficient to establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest or the issuance of a warrant … . The Aguilar-Spinelli test first requires the suppression court to assess whether the information on which the police have acted is reliable … . The second part of the Aguilar-Spinelli test evaluates whether the informant had an adequate “basis of knowledge” for the information supplied… . Under the fellow officer rule, “[i]nformation received from another police officer is presumptively reliable” … . The People still, however, must satisfy the second prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test: how the transmitting officer acquired that information.

Here, under the fellow officer rule, the arresting officers were entitled to presume that the information they received from an undercover officer was reliable. Moreover, under the circumstances of this buy and bust operation, it is clear that the transmitting officer, whether it was the ghost undercover officer or the primary undercover officer, had an adequate basis of knowledge for the information transmitted, either from direct participation in the transaction or observation of it. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the undercover officer who made the transmission was not required to delineate the defendant’s exact role in the transaction in order to establish probable cause for his arrest … . People v Oglesby, 2014 NY Slip Op 06845, 2nd Dept 10-8-14

 

Conviction for Which an Illegal Sentence Was Imposed Can Not Serve as the Basis for a Second-Felony-Offender Adjudication

The Second Department determined that a prior conviction could not serve as the basis of defendant’s second-felony-offender adjudication.  The 1993 conviction was subject to an illegal sentence which was not remedied until after the commission of the instant offenses:

The defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender was improper. The predicate for this adjudication was a 1993 conviction for which, the parties agree, an illegal sentence was imposed. A lawful sentence on that conviction was not imposed until after the instant crimes were committed. The relevant statute provides, however, that for purposes of determining whether a prior conviction is a predicate felony conviction, the sentence upon such prior conviction “must have been imposed before commission of the present felony” (Penal Law § 70.06[1][b][ii]). Thus, the 1993 matter may not serve as a predicate felony conviction in the instant case (see Penal Law § 70.06[1][b][ii]…). We reach this determination notwithstanding the fact that the defendant did not move to set aside his sentence in the 1993 matter until after the sentence in the instant case was imposed, as “multiple offender status is defined by the plain statutory language, which courts are not free to disregard” at will … . People v Esquiled, 2014 NY Slip Op 06839, 2nd Dept 10-8-14

 

,

Police Did Not Demonstrate They Had a “Founded Suspicion Criminality Was Afoot” Before Asking For and Receiving Defendant’s Permission to Search His Car

The Fourth Department determined the police failed to demonstrate they had a “founded suspicion that criminality was afoot” when they asked defendant for permission to search his car.  The marijuana and firearm found in the search should have been suppressed:

The law is well settled that the police may not ask an occupant of a lawfully stopped vehicle if he or she has any weapons unless they have a founded suspicion that criminality is afoot … . It is equally well settled that the police may not ask for consent to search a vehicle absent that same degree of suspicion … . Here, as both defendant and the People recognize, the legality of the police conduct turns on whether the officer who engaged defendant at the side of his vehicle smelled or observed marihuana in the vehicle before asking defendant whether he had any guns or drugs and before asking for consent to search. We conclude that there is no basis in the record to support the court’s finding that the officers smelled marihuana as soon as they approached the vehicle.  People v Wideman, 2014 NY Slip Op 06698, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

Sentence Greater than that Promised in a Plea Bargain Did Not Constitute Punishment for Exercising the Right to Go to Trial

The Fourth Department rejected defendant’s argument that his sentence was increased as punishment for going to trial:

” [T]he mere fact that a sentence imposed after trial is greater than that offered in connection with plea negotiations is not proof that defendant was punished for asserting his right to trial . . . , and there is no indication in the record before us that the sentencing court acted in a vindictive manner based on defendant’s exercise of the right to a trial’ ” …, or that the court ” placed undue weight upon defendant’s ill-advised decision to reject [a] favorable plea bargain and proceed to trial’ ” … . People v Odums, 2014 NY Slip OP 06692, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

,

Parole Officer Was Not Acting “Merely as a Conduit” for the Police In Conducting a Search—The Search Was Related to the Parole Officer’s Duties

In rejecting the defendant’s argument that the search by his parole officer was illegal because the search was not related to the performance of the parole officer’s duties, the Fourth Department explained the relevant law:

A parolee’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated if a parole officer’s search of the parolee’s person or property “is rationally and reasonably related to the performance of his duty as a parole officer” … . A parole officer’s search is unlawful, however, when the parole officer is “merely a conduit’ for doing what the police could not do otherwise” … . Stated differently, “a parolee’s status ought not to be exploited to allow a search which is designed solely to collect contraband or evidence in aid of the prosecution of an independent criminal investigation” … .

Here, defendant’s contention that the parole officer was acting as an agent of the DEA is undermined by the uncontroverted testimony of the parole officer that she was informed by a DEA agent prior to the search that the federal prosecutor “will most likely not want to get involved” in the case if an arrest were made, and by the fact that no federal charges were ever lodged against defendant. Rather, the parole officer testified that she conducted the search because she received credible information from law enforcement sources that defendant possessed a large quantity of cocaine in his apartment, which violated his parole conditions, and the court found her testimony in that regard to be credible. We thus conclude that the court properly determined that the search was rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duties, and that suppression was therefore not warranted … . People v Escalera, 2014 NY Slip Op 06700, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

, ,

Hearing Ordered to Reconstruct Contents of Missing Recording of 911 Call

The Fourth Department would not reverse defendant’s conviction due to the post-trial loss of the recording of a 911 call, the contents of which were important on appeal.  Instead, the court ordered a reconstruction hearing to create a record of the contents of the call.  People v Thomas, 2014 NY Slip Op 06710, 10-3-14

 

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