You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Although the Police Could Have Done More to Make Sure Defendant Was Not Represented by Counsel Before Questioning Him, Defendant’s Prior Attorney’s Statement to the Police that He Was No Longer Representing the Defendant Was Enough

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that the police properly questioned the defendant without an attorney present after they were told by defendant's prior attorney that the he no longer represented the defendant. Defendant was represented on a robbery charge. After defendant indicated he had knowledge of the commission of an unrelated murder, he entered a plea bargain which promised a reduced sentence if he provided useful information about the murder.  The police who interviewed the defendant about the murder did not believe his story and the defendant did not receive a reduced sentence for the robbery.  Subsequently, the police suspected defendant was himself involved in the murder.  Before questioning the defendant, the police met with the attorney who had represented the defendant on the robbery charge.  The police did not tell the attorney why they wanted to question the defendant. The police then elicited statements from the defendant without any further inquiry about whether he was represented by counsel.  The dissent argued that there was ambiguity about the defendant's representational status, the burden was on the police to make sure the defendant was no longer represented before questioning him, and that burden was not met here:

Here, the police did have a reason — an excellent one — to believe that the attorney-client relationship had ceased: the attorney had told them so. By asking the question and getting an unequivocal answer, the police discharged their burden. It is no doubt true that they could have done more. They could have explained to [defendant's attorney] exactly why they were eager to talk to defendant, or they could have asked defendant himself whether the relationship had reached an end. Perhaps had they done so, they would have received a different answer. But the police are not required to take all imaginable steps to protect a defendant's right to counsel. Where they follow the rules laid down in our cases — rules that are, in general, highly protective of the attorney-client relationship — they need do no more … .  People v McLean, 2014 NY Slip Op 07085, CtApp 10-21-14

 

,

“Outing” Confidential Informant Online Constituted Witness Tampering

The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's conviction for fourth-degree witness tampering.  Defendant was present when a confidential informant purchased drugs from defendant's companion.  The transaction was videotaped.  Defendant put the surveillance tape online and identified the confidential informant on his Facebook page.  Statements on the Facebook page by the defendant and others included warnings such as “Snitches get stiches:”

The evidence, seen in the light most favorable to the People, is sufficient to establish that defendant knew that the confidential informant might testify in a proceeding, and that he wrongfully sought to stop her from doing so. After learning about Jackson's arrest and the confidential informant's role as a witness against Jackson and, potentially, himself, defendant immediately posted communications on the internet that the jury might have reasonably inferred were coded threats that were intended to induce the confidential informant not to testify. And in addition to the public postings on Facebook and YouTube, defendant was in contact via Facebook messages (which essentially act as email on the website) with the confidential informant and her mother. People v Horton, 2014 NY Slip Op 07088, Ct.App. 07088, CtApp 10-21-14

 

,

County Court Was Not Required to Inquire Whether Defendant Wished to Seek New Counsel—Defendant’s Counsel of Choice Was Ill and County Court Ordered the Trial to Go Forward with Substitute Counsel (Selected by Defendant’s Counsel of Choice) After Denying Defendant’s Request for an Adjournment

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, determined defendant was not denied the right to his counsel of choice when County Court ordered the trial to go ahead with substitute counsel (selected by defendant's counsel of choice) because defendant's counsel of choice was ill.  The case turned on its facts.  Defendant did not request an adjournment to seek new counsel.  County Court was not required to ask the defendant whether he wished to seek new counsel:

A defendant who does not require appointed counsel has a right under both Federal and State constitutions to choose who will represent him … . “The constitutional guarantee to be represented by counsel of one's own choosing is a fundamental right” … . Nevertheless, “the right to counsel of choice is qualified, and may cede, under certain circumstances, to concerns of the efficient administration of the criminal justice system” … .

In particular, we have held that a defendant may not use the right to counsel of choice “as a means to delay judicial proceedings. The efficient administration of the criminal justice system is a critical concern to society as a whole, and unnecessary adjournments for the purpose of permitting a defendant to retain different counsel will disrupt court dockets, interfere with the right of other criminal defendants to a speedy trial, and inconvenience witnesses, jurors and opposing counsel” … . In short, appellate courts must recognize “a trial court's wide latitude in balancing the right to counsel of choice against the needs of fairness and against the demands of its calendar” … .

Significantly, in the present case, defendant does not contend that he expressly requested new counsel … and that the request was wrongly denied. Rather, defendant's principal argument is that when he moved, through counsel, for adjournment, County Court was obliged to inquire of him whether he was in fact seeking new counsel. We disagree.

…[I]n this case, County Court did not violate any of defendant's constitutional rights by denying the adjournment motions without that inquiry. On the record before us on direct appeal …  no communication was made to County Court from which it would appear that defendant was asking for the opportunity to retain new counsel, or for an adjournment in the hope that [his counsel of choice] would recover quickly enough to become his trial counsel. Rather, defendant simply sought an adjournment to give [substitute counsel] more time to prepare. Under these circumstances, there was no obligation on the part of County Court to inquire as to whether defendant was seeking new counsel. People v O'Daniel, 2014 NY Slip Op 07087, CtApp 10-21-14

 

, ,

Failure to Request Adverse Inference Jury Instruction Re: Missing Material Evidence, Under the Facts, Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Jude Lippman, determined defense counsel's failure to request an adverse inference jury instruction did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.  The defendant shot four men.  He claimed the men were about to attack him with razors. A videotape which apparently would have shown the altercation had been destroyed.  The trial took place in 2009, before the ruling in People v Handy, 20 NY3d 663 (2013), which established the adverse interest charge is mandatory upon request where evidence likely to be of material importance has been destroyed by the state. The Court of Appeals found that defense counsel's failure to request the adverse inference charge, if it was a mistake, was not enough to support a claim of ineffective assistance.  Proof presented at trial was at odds with defendant's assertion he acted in self-defense:

It is well-established that the effectiveness of a representational effort is ordinarily assessed on the basis of the representation as a whole … . One error — and only one is identified here — in the context of an otherwise creditable performance by counsel generally will not suffice in support of the conclusion that the representation was not “meaningful” … or fell below the objective standard of reasonableness required by the Federal Constitution … . There are, of course, exceptional cases in which an error is so clear-cut, egregious and decisive that it will overshadow and taint the whole of the representation …, but this is not that rare sort of case. Allowing for argument's sake that counsel erred in omitting to request the charge, that lone error was not in the context of this prosecution sufficiently egregious and prejudicial to constitute a predicate for the relief now sought. The entitlement to an adverse inference charge, such as the one defendant's attorney allegedly neglected to seek, was not conclusively established until 2013 when we decided People v Handy (20 NY3d 663 [2013]). It was in Handy that we first held such a charge to be mandatory upon request “when a defendant in a criminal case, acting with due diligence, demand[ed] evidence . . . reasonably likely to be of material importance, and that evidence ha[d] been destroyed by the State” (id. at 665). Before Handy, the availability of the charge was discretionary. At the time of defendant's trial, in 2009, competent counsel would naturally have seized upon the government's unexplained failure to preserve probably material evidence to encourage an inference adverse to the prosecution and favorable to her client, precisely as defendant's trial counsel did, but there was then no legal authority absolutely entitling her client to the judicial instruction she is now faulted for not having sought (see Handy, 20 NY3d at 669-670). Perhaps it was a mistake not to seek the charge, which likely would have been given as a matter of discretion, but if it was a mistake, it was not one so obvious and unmitigated by the balance of the representational effort as singly to support a claim for ineffective assistance. * * *

We do not exclude the possibility that, post-Handy, the failure to request a Handy charge could support an ineffective assistance claim. But the viability of such a claim, conditioned upon a demonstration of prejudice attributable to counsel's inadequacy …, would depend, in crucial part, upon facts making the adverse inference Handy merely makes available at least reasonably plausible. The present facts do not meet that condition. On this record, it cannot be said that there was even a reasonable possibility, much less a reasonable probability …that the jury, if offered the opportunity, would have elected to draw an inference adverse to the prosecution as to what the missing video would have shown. People v Blake, 2014 NY Slip Op 07086, CtApp 10-21-14

 

Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Is Available to a Persistent Felony Offender As Long As the Offender Has Not Been Convicted of Any of the Serious Offenses Enumerated in Correction Law 803

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, resolved a conflict among the appellate division departments about the applicability of the Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA) to persistent felony offenders.  The court determined that the resentencing allowed by the DLRA for certain drug-related offenses is available to persistent felony offenders who have not been convicted of any of the serious crimes enumerated in Correction Law 803:

The Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 (see L 2009, ch 56, § 1, hereinafter “2009 DLRA”) provides remedial resentencing to low-level non-violent felony drug offenders who meet various basic eligibility requirements (see CPL 440.46 [1]). The 2009 DLRA, however, denies resentencing to any offender who is serving a sentence for an “exclusion offense,” which is, among other things, an “offense for which a merit time allowance is not available pursuant to [Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii)]” (CPL 440.46 [5]; CPL 440.46 [5] [a] [ii]). Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii), in turn, makes a merit time allowance unavailable to an offender who is serving a sentence imposed for any of the violent or sexual crimes specifically enumerated in that statute, without regard to the offender's predicate sentencing status (see Correction Law § 803 [1] [d] [ii]). That statute also prevents any offender serving a sentence “authorized for an A-I felony offense” from receiving a merit time allowance (id.), thereby denying such an allowance to anyone who has been sentenced as a persistent felony offender (see Penal Law §§ 70.02 [2] [a]; 70.02 [3] [a] [i]; 70.10 [2]).

In interpreting the language of these interlocking statutes, the Departments of the Appellate Division are divided over the proper answer to the following question: does the DLRA resentencing exclusion apply to all offenders who are ineligible to receive a merit time allowance, including those who cannot receive those allowances solely by virtue of their recidivist sentencing adjudications; or, to the contrary, does it apply only to offenders who have been convicted of certain serious crimes that are specifically listed in Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii) and eliminate the possibility of a merit time allowance regardless of an offender's recidivist sentencing adjudication? We hold that the exclusion applies only to offenders who have been convicted of one or more of the serious crimes that automatically render merit time allowances unavailable under Correction Law § 803 (1) (d) (ii), and that therefore an offender who has no such conviction may be resentenced, notwithstanding his or her adjudication as a persistent felony offender. People v Coleman, 2014 NY Slip Op 07010, CtApp 10-16-2014

 

,

Speedy Trial Clock Starts On the Day the People’s Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeals Is Denied, Notwithstanding Adjournments Granted in the Lower Court

The Court of Appeals determined that the speedy trial clock started running when the People's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied.  The time attributable to the lower court's adjournment while the application to the Court of Appeals was pending should not have been excluded from the speedy trial calculation:

The parties do not dispute that under CPL 30.30 (5) (a) a new criminal action commenced when a Judge of this Court denied the People leave to appeal from the Appellate Term's order. The People point to the fact that, under the Criminal Procedure Law, “[i]n computing the time within which the people must be ready for trial . . . a reasonable period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to: . . . appeals; . . . and the period during which such matters are under consideration by the court” must be excluded (CPL 30.30 [4] [a] [emphasis added]).

The People contend therefore that the period from May 10, 2010 to August 23, 2010 is excludable, relying on People v Vukel (263 AD2d 416 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 830 [1999]), which held that when a trial court orders an adjournment for control purposes because of the pendency of a defendant's application for leave to appeal to this Court, the entire period of the adjournment is excludable under CPL 30.30 (4) (a), as time resulting from the appeal. In Vukel, the Appellate Division rejected the argument that the People have “an obligation to advance the case to an earlier date upon receiving the certificate denying leave” (id. at 417).

The mere lapse of time, following the date on which the order occasioning a retrial becomes final, does not in itself constitute a reasonable period of delay resulting from an appeal within the meaning of CPL 30.30 (4) (a). Otherwise, the People would be permitted to delay retrial for the duration of an adjournment in the trial court, no matter how lengthy, even after a Judge of our Court has denied leave to appeal, without consequence under CPL 30.30. Such a rule would be inconsistent with “the dominant legislative intent informing CPL 30.30, namely, to discourage prosecutorial inaction” … . To the extent Vukel holds otherwise, it should not be followed. People v Wells, 2014 NY Slip Op 07012, CtApp 10-16-14

 

,

Application of the Emergency Doctrine Presented a Mixed Question of Law and Fact which Could Not Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals determined that the application of the “emergency doctrine” to justify the warrantless search for and seizure of a weapon was a mixed question of law and fact which was not reviewable by the Court of Appeals.  The police responded to a call indicating the defendant had shot himself in the hand.  After the defendant had been frisked and while he his wound was being treated, police officers searched the backyard and found a weapon. The appellate division held that the search was justified by the officers' concern that the children in the house might come across the weapon.  The dissenting judge granted leave to appeal.  The Court of Appeals explained when a mixed question of law and fact is beyond that court's review:

Application of the “emergency doctrine” involves a mixed question of law and fact that is beyond this Court's review so long as there is record support for the findings of the courts below … . The Appellate Division majority and dissent both applied the test set forth in People v Mitchell (39 NY2d 173, 177-178 [1976], cert denied 426 US 953 [1976]) and reached conflicting conclusions as to when the emergency ceased. Because there is record support for the majority's conclusion that the search was lawful under the emergency exception, “'any further review is beyond this Court's jurisdiction'” … . People v Rossi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07006, CtApp 10-16-14

 

, ,

Videotaped Interview Indicated Defendant Did Not Understand His Right to Counsel—The Videotaped Statement, As Well As the Prior Oral and Written Statements, Should Have Been Suppressed

The First Department determined the People did not meet their burden of demonstrating the defendant understood his Miranda rights at the time he waived them.  After waiving his rights and making an oral and written statement, the defendant spoke with the Assistant District Attorney (ADA).  During that conversation, which was videotaped, the defendant gave responses which indicated he did not understand he had the right to talk to his own attorney before speaking with the ADA.  The court determined that the videotaped statement, as well as the prior oral and written statements, should have been suppressed:

…[I]t is not clear that this 18-year-old defendant with no prior criminal history, who could not read or write, ever understood his right to counsel nor the consequences of waiver. The evidence shows that defendant responded “yes” to questions when asked if he understood his rights. Then, immediately afterwards, defendant expressed confusion in understanding his right to counsel. As such, the People failed to present evidence that established defendant sufficiently understood the immediate import of the Miranda warnings. Moreover, ADA Elliot’s explanations failed to clarify for defendant the concept of his right to counsel. Thus, given defendant’s age, illiteracy, unfamiliarity with the criminal justice system, and statements expressing confusion about his Miranda rights, it is evident that the People failed to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights … . People v Adames, 2014 NY Slip Op 07063, 1st Dept 10-16-14

 

Conspiracy Indictment Which Does Not Charge an Overt Act is Jurisdictionally Defective

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction and dismissed a conspiracy indictment as jurisdictionally defective because the indictment failed to charge the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy:

In early October 2010, defendant — then serving a sentence in the Otsego County jail on a contempt conviction stemming from various violations of an order of protection in favor of his ex-girlfriend, Jeanette Hamm — allegedly told a fellow prisoner that he desired to have Hamm murdered. Defendant’s block-mate discussed the matter with prison officials, and the Otsego County Sheriff’s Department began an investigation. As part of the investigation, an undercover police officer posing as a potential assassin talked with defendant on the phone and met with him at the jail. Defendant was arrested shortly thereafter and charged by indictment with the crime of conspiracy in the second degree. * * *

As the People concede, the indictment is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed inasmuch as it failed to charge the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy as required by Penal Law § 105.20 … . People v Grays, 2014 NY Slip Op 07017, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

, ,

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

 

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