You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Assignment of New Counsel and Adjournment of Trial Over Defendant’s Objection Was Proper—Defense Counsel Had Represented the Confidential Informant in the Past—District Attorney Objected to Preclusion of Confidential Informant’s Testimony as a Solution

The Third Department determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered, over defendant’s objection, the assignment of new counsel because of a conflict of interest.  Assigned counsel had represented the confidential informant (CI).  The court was faced with either assigning new counsel or ruling that the CI could not testify:

County Court did not abuse its discretion in substituting assigned counsel against defendant’s wishes … . A criminal defendant’s right to counsel of his or her choice is not absolute and may properly be circumscribed where defense counsel’s continued representation of the defendant would present a conflict of interest … . Here, upon learning of the CI’s identity,[FN2] defendant’s original assigned attorney informed the court that he possessed confidential information from his prior representation of the CI that would affect his ability to cross-examine that witness, thereby establishing the existence of an actual conflict of interest … . Faced with “the dilemma of having to choose between undesirable alternatives” in addressing the conflict …, County Court’s decision to assign new counsel and adjourn the trial rather than preclude the testimony of the CI altogether constituted a proper exercise of its broad discretion under the circumstances presented … . People v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 07018, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

, ,

Spontaneous Statements Made After Request for Counsel Properly Admitted—911 Call Properly Admitted as an Excited Utterance

The Third Department determined statements made spontaneously to the police after the defendant requested counsel were properly admitted and a 911 call made by the burglary victim was properly admitted as an excited utterance:

As defendant requested counsel after being advised of his Miranda rights at the police station, any further police questioning was precluded … . However, “[n]otwithstanding this rule, statements made by a defendant who has invoked the right to counsel may nevertheless be admissible at trial if they were made spontaneously ” … . Here, we agree with County Court that the People established beyond a reasonable doubt that, following his request for counsel, defendant’s statements were not “the result of express questioning or its functional equivalent” … . That is, his statements to that point were “neither induced, provoked nor encouraged by the actions of the police officers” in simply bringing the girlfriend into the booking room, an action consistent with their routine procedure … . * * *

Next, defendant argues that County Court erred in admitting into evidence a redacted recording of the victim’s 911 call as an excited utterance, because her call was made after she had time for reflection. “An out-of-court statement is properly admissible under the excited utterance [hearsay] exception when made under the stress of excitement caused by an external event, and not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication” … . “Among the factors to be considered in determining whether . . . a statement is admissible [are] the nature of the startling event[,] the amount of time which has elapsed between the [startling] occurrence and the statement[,] and the activities of the declarant in the interim to ascertain if there was significant opportunity to deviate from the truth” …, although “the time for reflection is not measured in minutes or seconds, but rather is measured by facts” … .

Here, the victim testified that, although she had followed defendant’s car and had spoken with him, it was only after she returned home that she discovered that her home had been broken into and her television was missing, and she called 911 “right away.” In the 911 call, the obviously distressed victim exclaimed, “I was just robbed,” and explained her contact with defendant. As County Court correctly found, being the victim of a burglary is “a startling event” and the victim’s call was made “under the stress and excitement of a startling event and [was] not the product of any reflection and possible fabrication” … . People v Haskins, 2014 NY Slip Op 07019, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

,

Search of Home for Weapon Not Justified by Exigent Circumstances

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversed the appellate division, finding that exigent circumstances did not justify the search for and seizure of weapon after the suspects and all members of the household were in one room of the home under police supervision.  The police responded to gunfire, saw one of the suspects with a firearm, and used force to gain entry to the apartment into which the suspects fled:

“[S]ubject only to carefully drawn and narrow exceptions, a warrantless search of an individual's home is per se unreasonable and hence unconstitutional” … . One exception, commonly referred to as the “exigent circumstances” exception, dictates that police may act without a warrant where they possess probable cause to search but “urgent events make it impossible to obtain a warrant in sufficient time to preserve evidence or contraband threatened with removal or destruction” … . Even in such cases, however, “the scope of the conduct thus sanctioned is strictly limited by the necessities of the circumstances in which it arises” … . The People have the burden of establishing that the exigencies of the situation justified the warrantless search … .

In this instance, the People failed to meet that burden. There is no record support for the Appellate Division's conclusion that exigent circumstances justified the search of the closed box. The search was unreasonable as a matter of law because, by the time Officer Brennan opened the box, any urgency justifying the warrantless search had abated. The officers had handcuffed the men and removed them to the living room where they (and the two women) remained under police supervision. At the time Officer Brennan searched the box and discovered the gun, the police “were in complete control of the house” and “[a]ll occupants were out of commission” … . At that point, contrary to the People's contention, there was no danger that defendant would dispose of or destroy the weapon …nor was there any danger to the public or the police … .  Absent the presence of any other exception to the warrant requirement, such as a search incident to arrest or the gun being in plain view … the police were required to obtain a warrant prior to searching the box. People v Jenkins, 2014 NY Slip Op 07007, CtApp 10-16-14

 

, ,

Waiver of Appeal Invalid—Failure to Afford Defendant His Right to Counsel Prior To and During Grand Jury Proceedings Required Dismissal of the Indictment—“Guilty-Plea” Forfeiture Rule Did Not Apply

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, finding that the defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and the defendant had been deprived of his right to counsel with respect to whether to testify before the grand jury:

A trial court must ensure that a defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is knowing, intelligent and voluntary … . After the People informed County Court that defendant agreed to waive his right to appeal, the court asked defendant whether that contention was accurate, to which defendant replied affirmatively. Thereafter, the court questioned defendant about his understanding of the terms of the plea bargain, but failed to confirm that he fully understood that his waiver of appeal was not automatic and that it was, in fact, “separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” … . Defendant signed a written waiver of appeal outside of court and County Court made no inquiry about “the circumstances surrounding the document’s execution” or confirm that defendant had been fully advised by counsel of the document’s significance … . As such, the appeal waiver was invalid … .

On the merits of defendant’s appeal, a criminal defendant’s right to receive the assistance of counsel attaches at arraignment “and entails the presence of counsel at each subsequent critical stage of the proceedings” … . Further, whether an accused individual facing felony charges should elect to appear before and present evidence to the grand jury or, as equally relevant here, object to the timeliness or reasonableness of the notice of grand jury proceedings, raises questions necessitating consultation with legal counsel … . The People correctly observe that, by pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his claim that he was denied the statutory right to testify before the grand jury … or, as defendant now argues on appeal, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel where, as here, such assertion does not relate to the voluntariness of the plea or the integrity of the plea bargaining process … . Here, however, it is uncontroverted that defendant was denied the right to counsel prior to and during the grand jury proceedings, a critical stage of the instant criminal prosecution and, therefore, the forfeiture rule should not be applied … . Further, we observe that, while defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment was based solely on the denial of his right pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a) to testify before the grand jury, the “claimed deprivation of the [s]tate constitutional right to counsel may be raised on appeal, notwithstanding that the issue was not preserved” before County Court … . Inasmuch as defendant was not afforded an opportunity to consult with counsel “and make an informed decision as to whether to appear before the [g]rand [j]ury”…, the resulting deprivation of defendant’s constitutional right to counsel requires the dismissal of the indictment … . People v Chappelle, 2014 NY Slip Op 07014, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

,

Court-Ordered Blood Test Results Should Have Been Suppressed Because the Application Failed to Indicate the Application Was Based Upon Hearsay/Elements of Reckless Driving Explained

The Third Department vacated defendant’s conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated because the application for a court-ordered blood test did not indicate that it was based on hearsay.  In addition, the court, in affirming the defendant’s conviction for reckless driving, explained the elements of that offense. The defendant, who had stopped drinking a few hours before the accident, moved into the oncoming lane and struck the victim’s car head-on (the victim died):

Although an application for a court-ordered blood test may contain hearsay and double hearsay statements that satisfy the Aguilar-Spinelli test, the application must disclose that it is supported by hearsay and identify the source or sources of the hearsay” … . Here, the investigator based the application on information provided to him from other officers that defendant had made oral admissions at the scene to operating the vehicle and consuming alcohol, had a reading of .12% blood alcohol content on the Alco-Sensor test and refused to take a chemical test. The failure to reveal the hearsay nature of the information improperly deprived County Court of the opportunity to determine the reliability of the information for itself as a neutral, detached arbiter … . Accordingly, the motion to suppress the blood test results should have been granted and, in the absence of those results, the conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated must be vacated … .

As for the charge of reckless driving, it is defined as driving “in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of the public highway, or unreasonably endangers users of the public highway” … . “More than mere negligence is required, and the term has been held to mean ‘the running or operation of an automobile under such circumstances as to show a reckless disregard of the consequences'” … . “Determining whether conduct rises to the level of unreasonable interference or endangerment such that it constitutes the requisite recklessness involves the presence of additional aggravating acts or circumstances beyond a single violation of a rule of the road” … .

Here, the investigator who reconstructed the accident testified that defendant crossed the center line and collided driver-side “headlight to [driver-side] headlight” with the oncoming vehicle. The passenger in the other vehicle testified that the victim observed defendant in their lane and, although the victim attempted to move over as far as possible to avoid the accident, defendant was almost entirely in their lane at the time of the collision. Defendant admitted that she had been drinking, and the arresting officer testified that she had glassy eyes, slurred speech and the odor of alcohol. The officer concluded, based on his experience and observations, that defendant was intoxicated. People v Earley, 2014 NY Slip Op 07022, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

Elements of Florida “Theft” Statute and New York Larceny Statutes Are Different—Florida Conviction Cannot Serve as a Predicate Felony in New York

The Third Department, using its “interest of justice” review power, determined defendant’s Florida conviction could not serve as a predicate felony in New York because the relevant Florida statute included an element not included in the relevant New York statute:

Here, the information contained with the second felony offender notice indicates that, in 2001, defendant was convicted in Florida of a felony “theft” in the third degree (see Fla Stat Ann § 812.014). Under the applicable Florida penal statute, it is a crime to “knowingly obtain[] or use[], or endeavor[] to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently . . . [d]eprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property . . . [or a]ppropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property” (Fla Stat Ann § 812.014 [1] [a], [b] [emphasis added]). In comparison, New York’s larceny statutes do not contain analogous language with regard to mere temporary deprivations or appropriations (see Penal Law §§ 155.00 [3], [4]; 155.05 [1]…). Thus, the Florida crime undoubtedly contains an element that is not included in New York’s larceny offenses and, as a result, the Florida conviction is not sufficiently analogous to a New York felony to serve as a predicate felony for purposes of Penal Law § 70.06 … . People v Parker, 2014 NY Slip Op 07021, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

,

People Did Not Meet Their Burden of Demonstrating Developmentally Disabled Respondent, Who Had Been In the Care and Custody of the OPWDD Since His Acquittal of a Criminal Charge By Reason of Mental Disease or Defect, Was “Mentally Ill”—Respondent’s Release Was Appropriate

Respondent is mildly developmentally disabled and was committed to the care and custody of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) after acquittal of a criminal charge by reason of mental disease or defect.  The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled respondent could be released to a supervised intermediate care facility subject compliance with a service plan.  The court determined the People did not meet their burden of proving respondent met the relevant statutory definition of “mentally ill,” i.e., the definition which applies to the developmentally disabled:

If the court finds that a person committed pursuant to CPL 330.20 does not have a dangerous mental disorder but is mentally ill, that person must be confined in a nonsecure facility (see CPL 330.20 [12]…). If the court finds that the person is no longer mentally ill, it must release the person with an order of conditions (see CPL 330.20 [12]…). For purposes of CPL 330.20, a person with a developmental disability is considered “mentally ill” if he or she “is in need of care and treatment as a resident in the in-patient services of a developmental center or other residential facility for the . . . developmentally disabled under the jurisdiction of [OPWDD]” (CPL 330.20 [1] [d]). The DA had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent met the statutory definition of a “mentally ill” person (see CPL 330.20 [12]…]). * * *

…[T]he statute provides a different definition of “mentally ill” for individuals who have developmental disabilities in addition to one or more diagnosed mental disorders (see CPL 330.20 [1] [d]). For those individuals with developmental disabilities, the statute does not require that their judgment be so impaired by a mental illness that they are “unable to understand the need for such care and treatment” (CPL 330.20 [1] [d]); this makes sense, as such inability could be related to developmental disabilities as opposed to mental illness. Even if that additional factor applied here, however, respondent acknowledged in his testimony that he needed constant supervision, indicating that he understood the need for care and treatment. While the DA’s expert disagreed that respondent had any such understanding, Supreme Court found respondent credible and did not rely on that expert’s testimony. Thus, even under the definition of mentally ill that applies to individuals without developmental disabilities, the DA did not meet his burden. Matter of Arto ZZ, 2014 NY Slip Op 07053, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

,

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

 

, ,

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

 

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