You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Insufficient Proof of Value of Stolen Property, Evidence of Prior Crimes Improperly Admitted, Identification Testimony Improperly Admitted, Prosecutor Improperly Vouched for Witnesses—New Trial Ordered

In reversing the defendant’s grand larceny conviction, the Fourth Department determined the evidence of the value of the property was “conclusory” consisting only of “rough estimates” and was therefore legally insufficient.  The court also determined evidence of uncharged crimes and identification testimony should not have been admitted, and noted the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of prosecution witnesses. With respect to the uncharged crimes and identification evidence, the court wrote:

…[W]e agree with defendant that County Court erred in allowing the People to introduce evidence concerning an uncharged burglary to prove his identity as the perpetrator of the burglary and petit larceny charged in the indictment. The instant crime is “not so unique as to allow admission of evidence of the [uncharged burglary] on the theory of the similarity of the modus operandi” … . The court further erred in admitting the testimony of a witness who identified defendant in an out-of-court photo array procedure and thereafter identified him in court. The People failed to satisfy their obligation pursuant to CPL 710.30 inasmuch as no statutory notice was given by the People with respect to their intent to offer “testimony regarding an observation of the defendant at the time or place of the commission of the offense or upon some other occasion relevant to the case, to be given by a witness who has previously identified him as such” (CPL 710.30 [1]…). The errors in admitting evidence of the uncharged burglary and the identification of defendant are not harmless, considered singularly or in combination, inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is not overwhelming, and there is a significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for either of the errors… . People v Walker, 2014 NY Slip Op 05254, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

, ,

Claimant’s Inculpatory Statement Demonstrated to Be Product of Police Misconduct

Fourth Department affirmed the judgment against the state for wrongfull conviction and imprisonment.  After nine years of imprisonment for attempted murder, another came forward and credibly confessed to the crime.  The claimant was released and sued the state.  The state argued on appeal that, because the claimant made an inculpatory statement, the proof that he did not bring about his own conviction was insufficient.  In rejecting that argument, the court explained:

Claimant consistently maintained his innocence and contended that his inculpatory statement was coerced. “[A] coerced false confession does not bar recovery under section 8-b because it is not the claimant’s own conduct’ within the meaning of the statute” … . It is well settled that “[t]he voluntariness of a confession can only be determined through an examination of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession” … . “Relevant criteria include the duration and conditions of detention, the manifest attitude of the police toward the detainee, the existence of threat or inducement, and the age, physical state and mental state of the detainee” … . The use or misuse of a polygraph examination is also a factor to be considered in determining whether there was impermissible coercion … .

Here, we conclude that the record fully supports the court’s determination that claimant’s inculpatory statement was the product of police misconduct … . Claimant was awake for 34 hours before making his only inculpatory statement, which was the second statement he made. He had been interrogated for 15 hours in a six- by eight-foot windowless room. He ate nothing and drank only one can of soda and, although he was a heavy smoker, he had no cigarettes in the prior four or five hours. He remained under the severe emotional trauma of having seen his wife in a horrible bloodied and battered condition. Claimant was advised that, if he took a polygraph exam and passed, he would be permitted to go home.

Notably, the polygraph operator expressed significant concern to fellow officers about the reliability of the polygraph exam because claimant was “somewhat physiologically unresponsive to the polygraph.” Gristwood v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05259, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

Even In a Nonjury Trial, a Defendant Should Not Be In Shackles Unless Reasons Are Placed on the Record

The Third Department found the error harmless, but it noted that, even in a nonjury trial, the defendant should not be in shackles in the courtroom unless reasons for the restraint are put on the record:

Even in a nonjury trial, a defendant should not remain restrained in the courtroom unless the trial court sets forth particularized reasons for such restraint on the record … . People v Whitehead, 2014 NY Slip Op 05213, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

Alleged Error Did Not Raise a Question of Jurisdiction or Constitute a Constitutional Defect—Therefore the Alleged Error Did Not Survive the Guilty Plea

The Third Department described the types of fundamental errors which survive a guilty plea. The prosecutor’s alleged failure to inform the grand jury of defendant’s request to call witnesses in not one of them:

By his plea of guilty, defendant forfeited this argument. “As a rule, a defendant who in open court admits guilt of an offense charged may not later seek review of claims relating to the deprivation of rights that took place before the plea was entered” … . As relevant here, a claim “that the District Attorney did not inform the grand jury of defendant’s request to call witnesses to testify on his behalf as required by CPL 190.50 (6) . . . does not activate a question of jurisdiction or constitute a constitutional defect and, thus, does not survive a guilty plea” … . People v McCommons, 2014 NY Slip Op 05215, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

,

Proof of “Physical Injury” Was Legally Insufficient

The Second Department determined the “physical injury” element of robbery in the second degree had not been proven:

“Physical injury” is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). The subject complainant testified that he sustained an injury to his left ring finger after he was attacked from behind and fell to the ground. The complainant went to the hospital after the incident, where his bruised finger was bandaged and placed in a splint, but X rays revealed no broken bones and there was no evidence presented that he was prescribed pain medication. A “bruise” was still present four years after the incident, but the complainant only testified generally that he felt pain on his hand and arms immediately after the incident, and he did not testify that the injury limited or diminished his ability to use his finger for any length of time. Under these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the complainant suffered substantial pain or impairment of physical condition … . People v Boney, 2014 NY Slip Op 05197, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

, ,

Off-Duty Corrections Officer Was Not Acting Within the Scope of His Employment When Decedent Was Shot

The Second Department determined that an off-duty corrections officer (Maldonado) was not acting within the scope of his employment when he shot and killed a man:

“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment” … . “An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his [or her] employer, or if his [or her] act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . However, an employer may not be held vicariously liable for its employee’s alleged tortious conduct if, at the time of the underlying incident, the employee was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business … .

Here, the claimant’s decedent was shot by an off-duty New York State Corrections Officer, Emilio Maldonado, after a dispute. The record showed, inter alia, that Maldonado was assaulted by the claimant’s decedent and his brother following a traffic dispute. At the time of the incident, Maldonado was driving his personal vehicle, and was accompanied by family members. He was carrying his own privately-owned weapon as well as a badge. * * *

Although Maldonado testified in a related criminal action that he intended or planned to “cuff” and detain the assailants, it is undisputed that he never took any affirmative steps toward effecting a detention. In particular, he did not order the assailants to halt, and he did not physically attempt to handcuff or detain them. It is also undisputed that after the shooting, Maldonado did not attempt to detain the fleeing assailants. Under these circumstances, the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Maldonado acted within the scope of his official duties… . Wood v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05173, 7-9-14

 

, ,

Sex Offender May Not Avoid Civil Commitment Proceeding by Renouncing Citizenship and Leaving the Country

The Third Department determined the respondent in a Mental Hygiene Law 10.06 proceeding (called a SOMTA proceeding) to determine whether he, as a sex offender, should be committed to a secure mental health treatment facility, could not defeat the proceeding by renouncing his citizenship and leaving the country:

It is well established that “Congress has broad authority to set the conditions and procedures that an individual must satisfy in order to renounce his [or her] citizenship” … . In accord with its authority, Congress enacted 8 USC § 1481, which, in relevant part, provides that “[a] person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his [or her] nationality by voluntarily performing [certain enumerated] acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality” … . A citizen seeking to renounce his or her nationality must make an application therefor and, generally, must be outside the United States to do so … . To this end, respondent argues that the SOMTA petition must be dismissed so that he may be released from DOCCS’s custody in order to leave the United States and return to Israel, where he will effectuate his expatriation… .

We flatly reject this argument, which presupposes, among other things, that respondent would actually exit this country if he were released from custod. Even if he did leave, the state is not required to bear the risk that petitioner — an experienced international fugitive — would not return to New York thereafter. In any event, at this juncture, respondent remains a United States citizen confined in New York who is a sex offender alleged to have a mental abnormality and in need of civil management, and petitioner continues to have a legitimate interest in protecting society from the risks he poses… . Matter of State of New York v Horowitz, 2014 NY Slip Op 05001, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

County Court Should Have Afforded Defendant Opportunity to Withdraw His Plea Before Imposing an Enhanced Sentence Based Upon Post-Plea Events

The Third Department determined County Court should not have imposed an enhanced sentenced based upon post-plea events without affording the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea:

A sentencing court may not impose an enhanced sentence unless it has informed the defendant of specific conditions that the defendant must abide by or risk such enhancement, or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his or her plea before the enhanced sentence is imposed … . Here, County Court enhanced defendant’s sentence due to defendant’s arrest while on release pending sentencing. However, the record reflects that defendant was never warned that County Court would not be bound by its sentencing commitment if he were arrested while out on release … . Consequently, County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without first providing defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea… . People v Tole, 2014 NY Slip Op 04980, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Court Erred In Failing to Hold a Restitution Hearing—No Support In Record for Amount Imposed

The Third Department determined County Court erred by imposing $100,000 restitution without a hearing.  The People had determined the $100,000 figure was excessive and had requested restitution in the approximate amount of $32,000:

….[W]e agree with defendant that County Court erred in ordering restitution in the amount of $100,000 without a hearing. By statute, when a court requires restitution, it must make a finding as to the actual amount of loss and, “[i]f the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding or upon request by the defendant, the court must conduct a hearing” (Penal Law § 60.27 [2]…). Defendant sufficiently preserved this challenge to the increased amount of restitution, in that defense counsel and the People questioned it at sentencing … . Upon review, we find that there is no evidence in the record to support the court’s imposition of $100,000 in restitution. To the contrary, at sentencing the People characterized such figure as “excessive,” stated that they “lacked sufficient documentation and proof” to support that amount, and proffered evidence supporting restitution in the amount of $32,240, a figure to which the victim, the court and defendant had all agreed. Further, there are statutory limits on the amount of restitution, which may be exceeded, as relevant here, provided “‘the amount in excess [is] limited to the return of the victim’s property, including money, or the equivalent value thereof'” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for a restitution hearing or a redetermination of restitution consistent with the plea agreement. Given that “[a] sentencing court may not impose a more severe sentence than one bargained for without providing [the] defendant the opportunity to withdraw his [or her] plea” …, under the circumstances here, upon remittal, defendant must be afforded an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea if a hearing is held and the amount of restitution imposed exceeds the originally agreed upon amount, i.e., $32,240. People v Pleasant, 2014 NY Slip Op 04981, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

People v Rudolph (Requiring Sentencing Court to Consider Youthful Offender Status for All Eligible Defendants) Applied Retroactively to 2008 Conviction (on Direct Appeal)

The Third Department determined the ruling in People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]), requiring that courts always consider youthful offender status for eligible defendants, applied retroactively to a 2008 conviction by guilty plea in which the defendant agreed he would not receive youthful offender status:

In People v Rudolph (supra), the Court of Appeals, overruling precedent, held that the statutory command in CPL 720.20 (1) that the sentencing court address youthful offender status when a defendant is eligible for such status “cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request” (id. at 499). When addressing such status, the sentencing court should set forth factors considered in its determination …, particularly when denying youthful offender status … .

The People * * * assert that, since the sentence was consistent with prevailing precedent when imposed …., the holding in Rudolph should not be applied retroactively. However, notwithstanding the lengthy delay in perfecting this appeal, this case is before us on direct appeal — not a collateral attack — and the law as it now exists controls… . People v Calkins, 2014 NY Slip Op 04977, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

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