You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Providing a False Name During Booking Did Not Trigger the Need for a Miranda Warning

The Second Department determined the police were not required to give the defendant Miranda warnings when the defendant gave a false name during the booking procedure:

When the defendant gave what a police officer suspected to be a false name, the officer warned him that giving a false name would result in an additional charge, as required by the false personation statute (see Penal Law § 190.23). The defendant then repeated the false name after being given a second warning. The officer’s warnings to the defendant did not require Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). There is no basis for suppressing the defendant’s repeated use of a false name. Ascertaining an arrestee’s true name is a necessary part of the normal booking process, even if the response may have inculpatory connotations … . The false personation warnings were required by statute and were not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response .. . People v Allen, 2014 NY Slip Op 04503, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

 

,

Warrantless Search of a Backpack Dropped During a Struggle with Police Was Not a Valid Search Incident to Arrest

The Second Department determined that the search of defendant’s backpack, which turned up a loaded weapon, was not a valid search incident to arrest.  The backpack had been dropped during a struggle with the arresting officer and the arrest took place some distance away from where the backpack was:

“Under the State Constitution, an individual’s right of privacy in his or her effects dictates that a warrantless search incident to arrest be deemed unreasonable unless justified by the presence of exigent circumstances” … . “When an individual subjected to arrest has a privacy interest in property within his or her immediate control or grabbable area’, [the Court of Appeals] has identified two interests that may justify the warrantless search of that property incident to a lawful arrest: the safety of the public and the arresting officer; and the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment” …

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the search of the backpack was not justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest. The backpack was not within the defendant’s immediate control or “grabbable area” at the time he was arrested … . Moreover, the People failed to present evidence establishing exigent circumstances at the time of the arrest that would justify the search. The detective did not assert that he searched the backpack out of concern for the safety of himself or the public, and the circumstances did not support a reasonable belief that the backpack contained a weapon … . Likewise, the detective did not assert that he searched the backpack to protect against the destruction of evidence, and the facts do not support such an assertion. People v Thompson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04524, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

 

,

Photograph of Accident Scene Properly Admitted Notwithstanding Flowers Remembering Victim

The Fourth Department, in affirming defendant’s conviction stemming from the death of a passenger after defendant’s vehicle struck a tree, determined that the photograph of the accident scene was properly admitted notwithstanding the flowers placed at the scene in remembrance of the victim.  The court also rejected arguments that (1) defendant’s post-arrest silence was revealed to the jury (not preserved) (2) turning off the overhead projector effectively closed the courtroom (not preserved) and (3) defense counsel was erroneously prohibited from questioning the medical examiner about alternative causes for the victim’s injuries (speculative,  insufficient foundation).  With respect to the photograph, the court wrote:

“The general rule is stated in People v Pobliner (32 NY2d 356, 369…) photographs are admissible if they tend to prove or disprove a disputed or material issue, to illustrate or elucidate other relevant evidence, or to corroborate or disprove some other evidence offered or to be offered.’ They should be excluded only if [their] sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant’ ” … . Here, we agree with the People that the sole purpose of the evidence was not to arouse the emotions of the jury. To the contrary, the photographs established the relative positions of the tree and the roadway, the visibility of the tree, and the straight nature of the roadway, all of which were relevant to the jury’s factual determinations, including whether defendant was driving while in an intoxicated condition. People v Boop, 2014 NY Slip Op 04296, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

“Rare Case” Where Facts Supported Both Depraved Indifference and Intentional Murder

The Fourth Department determined the facts of the case—defendant fired a pistol at three people he did not know, killing one—supported both intentional and depraved indifference murder.  Defendant had been “jumped” by a student from a particular housing project.  Three days later defendant went to the project and committed the shooting:

The relevant legal principles for evaluating the above trial evidence are well settled. Depraved indifference is a mental state

” best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life—a willingness to act not because one intends harm, but because one simply doesn’t care whether grievous harm results or not’ ” … . “Circumstantial evidence can be used to establish the necessary mens rea” … . Although shooting into a crowd of people is a ” [q]uintessential example[ ]’ ” of depraved indifference … , the mere presence of others does not transform an otherwise intentional shooting into a depraved indifference murder or assault … . Rather, the point of distinction between a criminal act committed with intent and a criminal act committed with depraved indifference is that the former is motivated by the “conscious objective” to cause death or serious physical injury, while the latter is “recklessly indifferent, depravedly so, to whether death [or serious physical injury] occurs” … .

We conclude that this case is one of those “rare” cases where the defendant properly could have been charged with both intentional and depraved indifference murder …. Stated otherwise, and contrary to defendant’s contention, he is not “guilty of an intentional shooting or no other” … . The evidence summarized above, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People, establishes a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person” to conclude that defendant, by shooting indiscriminately at a group of people that he did not know, acted with depraved indifference to human life rather than with intent to kill … . People v Archie, 2014 NY Slip Op 04307, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

,

Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Standing to Challenge Search of Vehicle

The Third Department determined the defendant did not demonstrate he had standing to contest the inventory search of a vehicle, parked and empty at the time the police seized it, which turned up a weapon.  A police officer had seen the defendant driving the vehicle just before it was seized and a confidential informant had told the police where the defendant kept a handgun in the vehicle. Because the People did not rely solely on the statutory presumption of possession of a weapon (Penal Law 265.15 (3)) the defendant needed to allege and demonstrate standing.  Because the defendant did not own the vehicle and denied driving it on the day it was seized, he was unable to challenge the search:

A defendant seeking to suppress evidence has the burden to allege and, if disputed, establish standing to challenge a search … . “Standing exists where a defendant was aggrieved by a search of a place or object in which he or she had a legitimate expectation of privacy” … . While a defendant is entitled to “automatic standing” if the People “rely solely on the statutory presumption [of possession of a weapon] contained in Penal Law § 265.15 (3) to establish his [or her] guilt” …, defendant here cannot rely on that exception to his burden regarding standing. The People did not depend entirely upon the statutory presumption of standing, but had other evidence, including one officer who witnessed defendant driving the vehicle and the CI who provided information that defendant had a handgun in the vehicle and where within the vehicle the gun would be located … . Inasmuch as defendant did not own the BMW and denied that he was driving it on the day in question, he failed to allege any legitimate expectation of privacy in that vehicle. People v Anderson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04269, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

Exclusive Access Not Required for Constructive Possession

The Third Department determined the proof of constructive possession of a weapon was sufficient.  The gun was found in a boot outside the door to the apartment where defendant lived.  He had been seen entering the building with a gun. The court noted that exclusive access to the area where contraband is found is not required to sustain a finding of constructive possession:

Constructive possession can be established by evidence that the defendant had dominion and control over the weapon or the area in which it was found … . Exclusive access, however, is not required to sustain a finding of constructive possession … . Here, the People established that defendant resided in the first-floor apartment with his girlfriend and their young son, and the loaded handgun was found in a man’s boot located in a hallway leading to that apartment among shoes belonging to defendant’s girlfriend and his son. The only other tenant in the building was an elderly woman who lived on the second floor. Although defendant denied ownership of the boots, he admitted that he kept some of his belongings in the hallway, and the People established the presence of his DNA on the weapon. The rational inferences to be drawn from this evidence are sufficient to support the conclusion that defendant exercised dominion and control over the weapon and the area in which it was found … . People v Bellamy, 2014 NY Slip Op 04262, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

Defendant Did Not Make a Sufficient Showing to Justify Severance of Counts (Counts Related to Different Victims of Sexual Abuse)—-Nor Did the Defendant Make a Sufficient Showing to Justify a “Taint” Hearing (to Explore whether Allegations by a Child Were the Result of Suggestive Questioning)

The Third Department determined the defendant’s motion to sever the counts of the indictment, which involved different child victims of sexual abuse, was properly denied.  The court further determined the defendant’s motion for a taint hearing (to explore whether a child-victim’s allegations were the result of suggestive questioning) was properly denied:

Although charges arising out of different criminal transactions are properly joinable where, as here, “such offenses are defined by the same or similar statutory provisions and consequently are the same or similar in law” (CPL 200.20 [2] [c]…), a court nonetheless may — “in the interest of justice and for good cause shown” — exercise its discretion and order that such offenses be tried separately (CPL 200.20 [3]…). Good cause, in turn, may be established by demonstrating, among other things, that there is “[s]ubstantially more proof on one or more such joinable offenses than on others and there is a substantial likelihood that the jury would be unable to consider separately the proof as it relates to each offense” (CPL 200.20 [3] [a]…). Simply put, defendant failed to make such a showing here. * * *

Notwithstanding the absence of “express statutory authority for a hearing to determine whether the testimony of [a] child witness[] has been tainted by suggestive interviewing techniques,” a court nonetheless may — “[u]pon a proper showing” by the defendant — direct that a pretrial taint hearing be held … . Noticeably absent from defendant’s motion papers was any indication that victim B’s mother engaged in leading or otherwise suggestive questioning of victim B regarding any inappropriate contact that she may have had with defendant. Moreover, “any suggestibility, the manner of questioning and its effects on [victim B’s] testimony could be, and was, addressed on cross-examination of [victim B and her mother]” at trial… . People v Milford, 2014 NY Slip Op 04278, 3rd Dept 6=12=14

 

, ,

Past Domestic Violence Admissible to Show Intent in Rape Case—Victim’s Statements in Hospital Report Admissible under Business Records Exception/Confrontation Clause Not Implicated Because Statements Were Not Testimonial—Victim’s Statements Shortly After the Rape Admissible as Excited Utterances

In a case where the defendant was charged with raping his ex-girlfriend, the Third Department determined past incidents of domestic violence were properly allowed in evidence to demonstrate intent, statements made by the victim (who died before trial from an unrelated cause) included in a hospital report were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and statements made by the victim shortly after the rape were admissible as excited utterances.  With respect to the hospital records, the court wrote:

County Court properly allowed admission of statements that the victim made during her medical examination. “Hospital records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule as long as the information relates to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment” … . Details of the abuse, even including the perpetrator’s identity, may be relevant to diagnosis and treatment when the assault occurs within a domestic violence relationship because the medical provider must consider the victim’s safety when creating a discharge plan and gauging the patient’s psychological needs … . The physician who examined the victim testified that all of the information in the medical records was relevant to and gathered for purposes of diagnosis or treatment, and the primary purpose of the examination was to care for the patient’s health and safety, although a secondary purpose of the forensic examination was to gather evidence that could be used in the future for purposes of prosecution. Considering this information, although the victim was unavailable to testify because she died before trial (from causes unrelated to defendant’s crimes), defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated because the statements were not testimonial… . People v Pham, 2014 NY Slip Op 04276, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

Robbery First and Second Degree Convictions (Forcible Stealing) Supported Where Defendant Was Not Found to Be In Possession of Stolen Property and Used Force Only When Confronted By Security Personnel After the Alleged Taking

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, held that it is not necessary to recover stolen property in order to find that the defendant used physical force to prevent or overcome resistance to the … retention of stolen property (an element of robbery in the first and second degrees).  There was evidence, including video evidence, that the defendant removed the backing from earrings while inside a store. When confronted by security personnel, the defendant acted violently.  No stolen items were found.  The use of force at issue here was not involved in the taking of the property, but rather occurred  after the alleged taking when defendant was stopped by security.  The question was whether the defendant's use of force at that stage could be deemed to meet the “forcible stealing” element of robbery first and second degree.  Some appellate division decisions have held that defendant's use of force at that stage will meet the statutory requirement (force used to retain control of the property) if the defendant is found to be in possession of the stolen property. Here the Court of Appeals determined finding the defendant in possession of stolen property is not required:

Force used solely to effectuate a defendant's escape will not support a robbery conviction … . However, when a defendant is later found in possession of stolen property, the jury may infer that his or her use of force was to retain control of that property … .

Some Appellate Division Departments have adopted what amounts to an inverse proposition, that failure to recover stolen property from a defendant precludes a jury's finding of guilt for first or second degree robbery, notwithstanding the possible inferences which might reasonably follow from the trial evidence. Those Courts have held that, absent subsequent recovery of stolen property from the defendant, “it is impossible to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant's conscious objective in threatening to use physical force was to prevent or overcome resistance to the retention of the property” … . We reject this premise because it deprives the jury of its traditional role as factfinder and would have the unintended consequence of removing certain criminal conduct from the statutory ambit. * * *

Certainly, recovery from the defendant of the stolen property provides a strong basis for a jury's finding of criminal intent … . Yet, just as possession of the property is but one fact which supports the jury's reasonable inference of the defendant's “conscious objective,” failure to recover the property from the defendant is also a fact for the jury to consider in determining whether the People have established the requisite intent. Where sufficient facts and reasonable inferences support a finding of intent to forcibly steal, even where the stolen property is not recovered from the defendant, a jury should be permitted to make such a finding.  People v Gordon, 2014 NY Slip Op 04227, CtApp 6-12-14

 

Unclear Record Re: Whether Defense Counsel Was Apprised of the Complete Contents of a Jury-Request for Instructions Combined with the Judge’s Failure to Address One Aspect of the Request Constituted a “Mode of Proceedings” Error

The Court of Appeals determined the trial judge's response to a note from the jury was a mode of proceedings error requiring the vacation of the convictions related to the note.  The note asked for the judge's directions on “Manslaughter/Murder in the Second Degree-(Intent).”  The judge did not re-read the expanded “intent” charge and the record does not indicate defense counsel was notified of the “intent” aspect of the jury note:

Here, the trial court failed to meet its core responsibilities with regard to the note. Although there is record evidence that defense counsel was made aware of the existence of the note, there is no indication that the entire contents of the note were shared with counsel. Rather, the record reflects that the court paraphrased the note for counsel and the jury, but in each instance it omitted any reference to the note's “intent” language, hardly “a fair substitute for defense counsel's own perusal of the communication” (O'Rama, 78 NY2d at 277). Although the note is ambiguous concerning whether the jury was requesting an expanded definition of the intent element or was merely asking for a read back of the homicide charges which included a definition of intent, this only substantiates defendant's argument that the court failed to meet its core responsibilities of providing defense counsel with meaningful notice and an opportunity to provide input so that the court could give the jury a meaningful response. Where the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note — as it is in this case — preservation is not required … . Where a trial transcript does not show compliance with O'Rama's procedure as required by law, we cannot assume that the omission was remedied at an off-the-record conference that the transcript does not refer to (id.). People v Walston, 2014 NY Slip Op 04229, CtApp 6-12-14

 

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