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

 

,

Right to Counsel Did Not Attach When Community Activist Told Police Defendant’s Attorney Was On His Way to the Station

The Fourth Department determined that the right to counsel attaches only when the defendant or his attorney invokes it, not when someone informs the police defendant’s attorney is on his way to the station:

We reject defendant’s contention that his right to counsel indelibly attached when the community activist told the arresting police officers at the television station that defendant had an attorney who was on his way. “It is well settled that the right to counsel is personal’ to the accused… and thus cannot be invoked by a third party on behalf of an adult defendant” … . Thus, where, as here, a third party not affiliated with a lawyer or law firm indicates that defendant may have an attorney, “it would be unreasonable to require the police to cease a criminal investigation and begin a separate inquiry to verify whether the defendant is actually represented by counsel. Direct communication by an attorney or a professional associate of the attorney to the police assures that the suspect has actually retained a lawyer in the matter at issue’ ” … . Absent such direct communication, the police herein had no duty to investigate whether defendant was represented by counsel, and defendant’s right to counsel did not indelibly attach until an attorney later called the police directly. Inasmuch as all questioning ceased at that time, we conclude that the court properly refused to suppress the statements defendant made before that time.  People v McCray, 2014 NY Slip Op 06720, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

Question Posed by the Prosecutor to Prospective Black Jurors About Whether They Felt Police Officers Unfairly Target Members of the Minority Community Required Reversal

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding that the prosecutor’s explanation for excluding black jurors was not race-neutral.  The prosecutor asked the jurors whether they felt that police officers unfairly target members of the minority community:

Pursuant to Batson and its progeny, “the party claiming discriminatory use of peremptories must first make out a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by showing that the facts and circumstances of the voir dire raise an inference that the other party excused one or more [prospective] jurors for an impermissible reason . . . Once a prima facie showing of discrimination is made, the nonmovant must come forward with a race-neutral explanation for each challenged peremptory—–step two … The third step of the Batson inquiry requires the trial court to make an ultimate determination on the issue of discriminatory intent based on all of the facts and circumstances presented” … . * * *

With respect to step two of the analysis, we conclude that the People failed to meet their burden of setting forth a “race-neutral reason” for striking the challenged prospective jurors … . “A race-neutral reason naturally means an explanation based on something other than the race of the [prospective] juror’ ” …, and must be “related to the particular case to be tried” … . Although the burden on the nonmoving party at this stage of the analysis is relatively minimal, “[a] prosecutor’s explanation may not be sustained where discriminatory intent is inherent in the explanation” … .

Here, the People excluded the two prospective jurors at issue solely based upon their answers to a race-based question, i.e., whether they believed that police officers “unfairly target members of the minority community” … . Notably, that question was unrelated to the facts of this case, which does not involve any allegation of racial profiling . We are unpersuaded by the People’s assertion that the question was “designed to ensure that the jurors would not automatically accept or reject police testimony.”  People v Mallory, 2014 NY Slip Op 06728, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

,

Out-of-Court Statements by Defendant and Unknown Woman with Whom Defendant Spoke on the Phone from Jail Admissible

The Fourth Department determined that out-of-court statements made by the defendant in phone calls from jail and a statement made by an unknown woman defendant was talking to were admissible because they were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted:

Defendant … contends that the court erred in admitting in evidence the recordings of two telephone calls he made from jail following his arrest. During the first call, defendant said to an unknown female, “Tell him [defendant’s father] what happened to my ID.” Defendant was referring to his claim that his jacket, containing his parole identification card, had been stolen from his father’s car. During the second call, an unknown female informed defendant that his father told the police that his car had not been running for “a long-ass time,” and in response defendant instructed the female to tell his father “not to mention” that the car was not running. We reject defendant’s contention that his own above-referenced statements constitute inadmissible hearsay. The statements in question were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted …; instead, they were offered to show that defendant appeared to be fashioning an innocent explanation for the fact that his parole identification card was found at the crime scene. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the statement made by the unknown female during the second call constituted inadmissible hearsay. In any event, that statement was admissible to put defendant’s responding statement into context by providing “necessary background information to the jury” … . People v Scarver, 2014 NY Slip Op 06713, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

Conviction on a Lesser Inclusory Count Can Not Stand Even In the Absence of Preservation

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree could not stand because that charge was a lesser inclusory count of another count of which the defendant was convicted (criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree):

Although defendant failed to preserve this contention for our review, the People … correctly concede that “we may review the issue as a matter of law despite defendant’s failure to raise it in the trial court” … . People v Roberts, 2014 NY Slip Op 06707, 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