You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Exculpatory Evidence Provided by Co-Defendant Should Not Have Been Struck from the Record When Co-Defendant Asserted His Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge, sua sponte, struck all of his co-defendant’s testimony after the co-defendant invoked his privilege against self-incrimination.  The defendant was entitled to have the exculpatory evidence presented by the co-defendant considered by the jury:

County Court erred in sua sponte striking the entire testimony of his codefendant after the codefendant invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, and we therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial … . We conclude that the court erred in failing to “weigh the options” in a “threshold inquiry” to determine whether “less drastic alternatives” were available, other than striking the entire testimony of the codefendant … . Here, the codefendant provided testimony that, if allowed to remain in the record, would have supported defendant’s positions that defendant did not engage in any scheme to defraud, and that the codefendant had pleaded guilty with respect to similar charges brought against him in order to avoid harsher penalties, and not because the codefendant had engaged in any fraudulent conduct. We further conclude that defendant had the right to have such “relevant and exculpatory testimony considered by the jury” … . We also conclude that the court’s error in striking the codefendant’s testimony is not harmless inasmuch as “the proof against defendant [is] not overwhelming and there is a reasonable probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the error” … . People v Chadick, 2014 NY Slip Op 07789, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

People Failed to Prove Low IQ Defendant Validly Waived His Miranda Rights and Gave Statements Voluntarily—Convictions Reversed, Some Charges Dismissed and New Trial Ordered

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, found that the defendant’s statements should have been suppressed because the People failed to prove the defendant intelligently waived his right to remain silent and because the People failed to prove his statements were made voluntarily.  The evidence indicated defendant has an IQ of 63 or 68.  There was a video of defendant’s interrogation. And the defense presented expert opinion evidence that the defendant was not capable of intelligently waiving his Miranda rights, and, because of the leading nature of the interrogation and defendant’s excessively compliant nature, the defendant did not make his statements voluntarily:

At the Huntley hearing, the People presented the expert testimony of a forensic psychiatrist who interviewed defendant in jail and reviewed the videotape of his confession. The People’s expert acknowledged that defendant was “intellectually handicapped,” with a full-scale IQ of 68, but concluded that defendant was “not that retarded” and could understand his Miranda rights. The defense expert testified that defendant’s IQ placed him in the “mentally retarded range of intellectual functioning.” Defendant’s verbal IQ was 63, which placed him in the first percentile, meaning that he performed worse than 99% of the test population. Based upon defendant’s “very poor” level of verbal functioning, the defense expert opined that, although defendant was “able to understand the words of the Miranda rights,” he was “not capable of intelligently waiving” those rights. He further opined that defendant was “a very suggestible and very compliant man as is not atypical of persons who are mentally retarded,” which placed him at risk of falsely confessing. * * *

Where a “person of subnormal intelligence” is involved, “close scrutiny must be made of the circumstances of the asserted waiver” … . “A defendant’s mental deficiency weighs against the admissibility of an elicited confession, so that any such confession must be measured by the degree of the defendant’s awareness of the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon them” … . A suspect of “subnormal intelligence” may effectively waive his or her Miranda rights “so long as it is established that he or she understood the immediate meaning of the warnings” …, i.e., “how the Miranda rights affected the custodial interrogation” (id. at 289). It must therefore be shown that the suspect “grasped that he or she did not have to speak to the interrogator; that any statement might be used to the subject’s disadvantage; and that an attorney’s assistance would be provided upon request, at any time, and before questioning is continued. What will suffice to meet this burden will vary from one case to the next” … . * * *

As the defense expert testified at trial, “[w]hat became very clear in the video . . . was that [defendant] changed his answers based on the kind of questioning that was done to him. In other words, he was asked the question, the same question over and over again. So it no doubt became clear to him that he was answering the wrong way. So he changed his answers to be what he believed the cop wanted to know.” Many, although not all, of defendant’s responses consisted of “mmm-hmm,” yes, and a parroting back of the detective’s statements. The detective also told defendant that he had spoken to the victim and her mother, that the victim was “not lying,” and that the medical examination was going to show that “something happened” between defendant and the victim. The defense expert testified that such tactics “would lead [defendant] to question his own memory of the situation which isn’t good to begin with. He’s got deficits in memory. So if presented with memory that would counteract what he believed to be true, he would change his answer.” People v Knapp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07801, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Request for Missing-Witness Jury Instruction Should Have Been Granted—Prosecutor’s Statement that the Witness Would Exercise His Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Not Enough to Demonstrate Witness’ Unavailability

The Fourth Department granted defendant a new trial because the defense request for a missing witness jury instruction was denied.  The witness, who had testified before the grand jury,  was the only eyewitness to the relevant events.  The prosecutor argued the witness was unavailable because he would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.  The Fourth Department determined the witness’ unavailablity was not sufficiently established:

Contrary to the People’s contention, they failed to establish that the eyewitness was unavailable. Although the People correctly note that “a witness who on Fifth Amendment grounds refuses to testify will be considered unavailable’ although the witness’s presence is known and apparent” …, the People failed to establish that the eyewitness was unavailable on that ground. An uncharged accomplice may be considered unavailable in certain circumstances …, but the statements made by the prosecutor were not sufficient to establish that the eyewitness was an accomplice or that he faced any criminal liability for his actions … . The People’s further contention that the prosecutor could not call the eyewitness inasmuch “as his attorney will have him plead the Fifth Amendment” is not supported by evidence in the record before us. It is well settled that a trial court “should . . . be reasonably sure that the witness will in fact invoke the privilege, and where there is doubt the witness should be brought before the court and asked the relevant questions” … . Here, the prosecutor did not call the eyewitness and there was no communication from the eyewitness’s attorney; thus, “there was no verification that [the eyewitness] would plead the Fifth Amendment on the stand” … . The People’s “bare allegation that the witness in question apparently’ would assert [his] Fifth Amendment privilege, in light of the attendant circumstances, did not render that witness unavailable” … . People v Fuqua, 2014 NY Slip Op 07784, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Inventory Search of Impounded Vehicle Proper

In upholding the validity of an inventory search of defendant’s vehicle, the Fourth Department explained the analytical criteria:

It is well settled that, “[w]hen the driver of a vehicle is arrested, the police may impound the car, and conduct an inventory search, where they act pursuant to reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith’ ” … . Thus, “[h]aving arrested the defendant [in] a public [parking lot], the officers were thereafter entitled to impound the vehicle” … . Furthermore, “[i]t is settled law that the police may search an impounded vehicle to inventory its contents” … . “Such searches, conducted as routine procedures, are permitted to protect an owner’s property while it remains in police custody, to protect the police against false claims for missing property and to protect the police from potential danger” … . Here, the police officers properly impounded the vehicle that defendant drove to the scene of the crime and performed an inventory search of that vehicle pursuant to a reasonable Cheektowaga Police Department procedure, during which they discovered the handgun. Consequently, the court properly refused to suppress the evidence seized during that inventory search. People v Tardi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07880, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Abuse of Discretion to Entertain a Motion to Suppress Brought More than 45 Days After Arraignment (the Motion Had Been Granted and the People Appealed)

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a chemical blood test should not have been granted because the motion was made more than 45 days after arraignment:

The People appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a chemical test of defendant’s blood, which had been taken from defendant more than two hours after his arrest (see generally Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [a] [1]). The motion was made … more than 45 days after defendant’s arraignment …, and was therefore untimely as a matter of law (see CPL 255.20 [1]). We conclude that County Court abused its discretion in entertaining and granting the untimely motion because there was no good cause shown by defendant for an extension of time (see CPL 255.20 [3]…). People v Enright, 2014 NY Slip Op 07850, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

Delay In Seeking DNA Sample Contributed to Violation of Speedy Trial Statute—Indictment Dismissed

The Second Department dismissed the indictment because the unexcused delay in seeking a DNA sample resulted in the violation of the speedy trial statute (CPL 30.30):

The defendant moved pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial. Contrary to the People’s contention, because the People failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining the DNA sample from the defendant, the 161-day period between June 5, 2009, and November 13, 2009, was not excludable on the ground that their need to obtain the DNA test results constituted excusable, exceptional circumstances (see CPL 30.30[4][g]…). Adding this period of time to the periods of delay correctly conceded by the People, the People exceeded the six-month period in which they were required to be ready for trial (see CPL 30.30[1][a]). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 granted, and the indictment dismissed. People v Clarke, 2014 NY Slip Op 07680, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Proof of “Physical Injury” Legally Insufficient (Lacerated Finger)

The Second Department determined the evidence of “physical injury” suffered by Sergeant Klein , required for the offense of Assault in the Second Degree, was legally insufficient:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). Sergeant Klein did not testify at trial. His medical records, which were admitted into evidence, indicated that he suffered a laceration to a finger on his right hand, with abrasions, pain, and swelling. While it is true that, to constitute physical injury, the pain caused by such a wound need not “be severe or intense to be substantial” …, it must, at a minimum, cause “more than slight or trivial pain” (id. at 447) or, to some extent, result in the impairment of the use of the finger (see Penal Law § 10.00[9]). No evidence was introduced that the injuries sustained by Sergeant Klein caused him more than trivial pain, or that the use of his finger was impaired by these injuries … . Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of assault in the second degree under count two of the indictment must be vacated, and that count of the indictment must be dismissed. People v Perry, 2014 NY Slip Op 07689, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Appellant’s Running From Area Where Gunshots Were Heard and a Visible Bulge Under Appellant’s Clothing Provided Police With Reasonable Suspicion to Justify Stopping Appellant

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, determined that seeing the appellant running shortly after hearing gunshots, and seeing a bulge under appellant’s clothing, provided the police with reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify stopping the appellant.  The suppression of the weapon thrown down by the appellant, therefore, was not required:

Appellate courts have held under the same or similar factual circumstances that the police have reasonable suspicion to pursue an individual observed with a bulge at the waistband while in geographic and temporal proximity of gunshots, who then flees from the police … . The Court of Appeals has recognized that reasonable suspicion, and not probable cause, is the applicable standard in assessing a police stop or detention and that, in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, a defendant’s flight may be considered … .

Here, because the pursuit of the appellant was justified, the gun he discarded during the pursuit was not subject to suppression as a result of any unlawful police conduct … . Matter of Ya-Sin S, 2014 NY Slip Op 07672, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Conviction Overturned for the Second Time Because of Misconduct by the Same Prosecutor

In reversing defendant’s conviction for the second time (after the retrial) because of the same prosecutor’s misconduct, the Fourth Department also concluded there was insufficient evidence of the value of stolen items (cost of items when purchased not enough)) and there was insufficient evidence of possession of a controlled substance (statement that cocaine was smoked by the defendant on a particular day not enough). With respect to the prosecutorial misconduct, the court wrote:

Despite our prior admonition on defendant’s first appeal, the prosecutor on retrial repeated some of the improper comments from the first summation and made additional comments that we conclude are improper.  The prosecutor improperly denigrated the defense and defense counsel, repeatedly characterizing the defense as “noise,” “nonsense” and a “distraction[],” and arguing that defense counsel was fabricating facts and attempting to mislead the jury .. .  In one of the more troubling passages in her summation, the prosecutor stated, “You are here for the People of the State of New York versus [defendant] . . . It is not about who isn’t sitting at the defense table, it is about who is.  Are you buying it? Because that’s what they’re selling.  Theories disguised as arguments and posturing as evidence.  And I’m not suggesting the defendant has the burden of proving anything because the burden rests with the People, but by the same token, it doesn’t give counsel license to make stuff up and pretend that it’s evidence.  They all have something in common.  These theories, they’re noise, they’re nonsense.  They want you to be distracted.  Do not be distracted.”

In addition, the prosecutor misstated the evidence and the law…, made an inappropriate “guilt by association” argument …, and improperly characterized the case as “about finding the truth and it is as simple as that” … .  Perhaps the prosecutor’s most egregious misconduct occurred when she made herself an unsworn witness and injected the integrity of the District Attorney’s office into the case … .  With respect to a chief prosecution witness, who did not testify at the first trial and who turned herself in on a warrant the day prior to her testimony, the prosecutor stated:  “When she arrived at our offices, she was escorted over to Buffalo City Court because she had a warrant, because that’s what you have to do, and she was released on her own recognizance by the judge.  And let me be very clear here when we talk about promises to witnesses or benefits that they received.  Let me be very clear. Neither myself, nor [the other prosecuting attorney], nor anyone from our office, ever promised her anything in exchange for her testimony” … .  The Court of Appeals condemned similar comments by the prosecutor… . People v Morgan, 942, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

,

Insufficient Break Between Unwarned Statement and Subsequent Warned Statement—All Statements Suppressed/Appellate Court Cannot Consider Argument Not Raised by the People at Trial and Not Considered by the Trial Court

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that there was not a sufficient break between the unwarned portion of defendant’s statement and the subsequent warned statements to remove the taint of the initial failure to give the Miranda warnings.  The court noted that it was precluded from considering any theory supporting the admissibility of subsequent warned statements because the theory was not presented to the trial court by the People and was not considered by the trial court:

“[W]here an improper, unwarned statement gives rise to a subsequent Mirandized statement as part of a single continuous chain of events, there is inadequate assurance that the Miranda warnings were effective in protecting a defendant’s rights, and the warned statement must also be suppressed” … . On this record …, it is clear that defendant’s two written statements, although produced after she had been Mirandized, were “part of a single continuous chain of events” that included the detective’s initial pre-warning inquiries and statement, defendant’s pre-warning acknowledgment that she knew why she had been brought in, and her pre-warning statement that she and the other alleged perpetrator had asked to use the victim’s phone outside the latter’s house. There was no time differential between the Miranda violation and the Mirandized interview that immediately followed, giving rise to the two written statements; the same police personnel were involved before and after the warnings; there was no change in the location or nature of the interrogation; and defendant had never indicated a willingness to speak to the police before the Miranda violation. Further, although the pre-warning exchange was very brief and did not include any admission by defendant of criminal conduct, her unwarned statements plainly tended to incriminate her by acknowledging that she knew something about the murder of an elderly woman and by placing herself at the scene of the crime with the victim and the other alleged perpetrator … .

Under the foregoing circumstances established by the record, it cannot be said that there was, between the Miranda violation and the making of the subsequent Mirandized written statements, such a “definite, pronounced break in the interrogation to dissipate the taint from the Miranda violation” … by “return[ing] [defendant], in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning” … . * * *

We note that we are precluded from considering whether the break of at least 2 hours and 45 minutes between the completion of defendant’s second written statement and the commencement of her videotaped statement (which began with renewed Miranda warnings administered by the assistant district attorney) sufficed to attenuate any taint from the commencement of the questioning before she was initially Mirandized and, therefore, to render the videotaped statement admissible. The hearing court’s decision denying suppression did not consider any such theory, which had not been raised by the People in opposition to the motion seeking suppression of all three recorded statements. Accordingly, under CPL 470.15(1), we are without power to affirm on the ground that the videotaped statement was admissible and that its admission rendered harmless the error in admitting the written statements … . People v Daniel, 2014 NY Slip Op 07568, 1st Dept 11-6-14

 

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