You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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

 

,

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

 

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