You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Hearsay Evidence of Another’s Admission to the Crime Warranted a Hearing Pursuant to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Conviction

The Third Department determined newly discovered evidence, including hearsay evidence of the admission of another (Melton) to the commission of the crime, warranted a hearing pursuant to the defendant’s motion to set aside his conviction:

“[A] defendant has a fundamental right to offer into evidence the admission of another to the crime with which he or she is charged” … . “Depriving a defendant of the opportunity to offer into evidence another person’s admission to the crime with which he or she has been charged, even though that admission may only be offered as a hearsay statement, may deny a defendant his or her fundamental right to present a defense” … . The People’s claims regarding Melton’s unwillingness to testify were themselves hearsay, and simply created issues of fact as to whether he was available and, if not, whether his posttrial statements were admissible as declarations against his penal interest … . A statement is admissible under this hearsay exception if (1) the declarant is unavailable because of death, absence or a refusal to testify on constitutional grounds, (2) the declarant knew when making the declaration that it was contrary to his or her penal interest, (3) he or she had competent knowledge of the facts, and (4) other independent evidence supports the reliability and trustworthiness of the declaration … . Where, as here, the statement at issue tends to exculpate a criminal defendant, a more lenient standard of reliability is applied than to inculpatory statements; an exculpatory declaration is admissible if competent independent evidence “establishes a reasonable possibility that the statement might be true” .. . .  People v Sheppard, 2014 NY Slip Op 04982, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Court’s Refusal to Allow Defendant to Inspect His Laptop Computer, Evidence from Which Was Central to the People’s Case, Was Reversible Error

The Second Department determined that denial of defendant’s request to inspect his laptop computer, from which evidence was extracted to prosecute him, was reversible error:

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to compel the People to provide the defendant with the opportunity to inspect the laptop computer that was seized from his home and for an adjournment of the trial, in order to permit the defense to examine that computer (see CPL 240.20[1][f]…). The defendant was entitled to inspect the laptop computer, pursuant to CPL 240.20(1)(f), and the defendant made a timely demand to inspect the laptop computer (see CPL 240.20[1][f]…).

Further, the laptop computer was central to the People’s case against the defendant; the People’s expert witness testified, at length, as to his examination of the laptop computer, the evidence that was extracted from that computer, and the basis for his conclusion that such evidence was accessed from or uploaded to the internet by the defendant. Additionally, the prosecution provided no reason for its failure to provide the computer to the defense. Under these circumstances, this error warrants reversal … . People v Naran, 2014 NY Slip Op 04969, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

Defendant Not Afforded Right to Testify Before Grand Jury—Indictment Dismissed

The Second Department determined the indictment must be dismissed (without prejudice) because the defendant was not afforded his right to testify before the grand jury:

CPL 190.50(5) provides that a defendant has a right to appear and testify before a grand jury if he or she serves written notice of his or her intent to do so upon the District Attorney before an indictment is filed. “[T]he opportunity to testify prior to any Grand Jury vote is qualitatively different from and more advantageous than the opportunity to testify . . . after the Grand Jury ha[s] committed itself to a vote based on the prosecution’s ex parte presentment of evidence” … . Thus, a defendant who provides timely notice “prior to the prosecution’s presentment of evidence and prior to the Grand Jury vote on an indictment [is] entitled to testify before the vote” … .

Where, as here, the defendant has been arraigned upon an undisposed felony complaint, the People must notify the defendant of the grand jury proceeding and accord him or her a reasonable time to appear (see CPL 190.50[5][a]…). Here, the People’s notice pursuant to CPL 190.50 indicated that the defendant was “scheduled to testify” before the grand jury on June 8, 2010, and that his testimony was required to have been given before 5:00 p.m. on that date. The record reveals that the defendant provided the People with written notice of his intent to testify before the grand jury pursuant to CPL 190.50, at the latest, by 3:37 p.m. on June 7, 2010. Thus, the defendant provided the People with the requisite notice more than 24 hours in advance of his proposed appearance. Under these circumstances, the defendant was entitled to testify prior to the grand jury’s vote. People v Ellison, 2014 NY Slip Op 04957, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

Court’s Failure to Conduct an Inquiry After Learning of a Juror’s Comments During Trial Indicating Her Lack of Impartiality Required Reversal

The Second Department determined that the trial judge had been made aware of information raising the possibility that a juror would not be impartial and erred in not conducting an inquiry:

The Court of Appeals, in People v Buford (69 NY2d 290, 299), set forth the basic framework to be followed when conduct occurs during a trial that may be the basis for disqualifying a juror. The court should conduct an in camera inquiry of the juror, in which counsel should be permitted to participate if they desire, and evaluate the nature and importance of the information and its impact on the case … . In addition, the “trial court’s reasons for its ruling should be placed on the record . . . [and] the court may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror” … . Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that an “in camera inquiry may not be necessary in the unusual case . . . where the court, the attorneys, and defendant all agree that there is no possibility that the juror’s impartiality could be affected and that there is no reason to question the juror” (People v Buford, 69 NY2d 299 n 4), here, defense counsel wanted the juror to be questioned.

The Supreme Court erred in failing to conduct an in camera “probing and tactful inquiry” (id. at 299) of juror number seven, during the trial, when it was alleged that he had stated “the evidence speaks for itself or they got themsel[ves] into this situation” …, and subsequently, after deliberations had commenced, when it was alleged that juror number seven had engaged in flirtatious conduct with someone connected to the defendant as well as someone connected to the codefendant … . Since the court’s general inquiry of the jurors with respect to the first incident failed to meet the requirements of Buford …, and no inquiry at all was made with respect to the later incidents …, it is unknown whether the juror held an opinion that affected his ability to be impartial … . Such an error is not subject to harmless error analysis and, thus, the conviction must be reversed … . People v Henry, 2014 NY Slip Op 04962, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

,

Evidence which Should Have Been Presented In the People’s Direct Case Should Not Have Been Allowed in Rebuttal

The Second Department determined the trial court erred in allowing the People to present more evidence after the defense rested. The charges were based upon allegations the defendant caused injuries to her baby by shaking the baby.  The People’s evidence demonstrated the defendant denied knowing that shaking the baby could cause injury.  The People were allowed to present evidence, after the defense had rested, that a nurse had explained the dangers of shaking to the defendant:

A court has the discretion to permit a party to present evidence in rebuttal, which, more properly, should have been presented in that party’s original case (see CPL 260.30[7]…). The Court of Appeals has approved the exercise of this discretion where the evidence proffered relates to an element of the offense which is “simple to prove and not seriously contested, and reopening the case does not unduly prejudice the defense” … .

Here, the missing element of the People’s case was not a simple, uncontested fact, but, instead, was the mens rea of the subject offense … . Indeed, the People’s own evidence established that the defendant denied knowing that her actions could result in injury to the child. Furthermore, the parties’ expert witnesses ” hotly contested'” … whether shaking could cause the type of injuries at issue and, if so, how much force would be necessary to cause such injuries, and there was no evidence that the defendant knew of the point when rocking or shaking could become potentially injurious.

Because this case does not fit within “the narrow circumstances where . . . the missing element is simple to prove and not seriously contested, and reopening the case does not unduly prejudice the defense” …, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s application to present the nurse’s testimony in rebuttal. Without this testimony, the People’s evidence was legally insufficient to establish the mens rea element of endangering the welfare of a child beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04970, 2nd Dept 7-2-2014

 

Grossly Negligent and Reckless Driving Did Not Support Conviction for Depraved Indifference Murder

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, determined that the actions of the defendant, who killed a pedestrian during a police chase, did not meet the criteria for depraved indifference murder.  Although the defendant drove in a grossly negligent and reckless manner, there was evidence he took measures to avoid injuries to others and therefore was not indifferent to the effects of his actions:

A person is guilty of depraved indifference murder when, “[u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life [such person] recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]). Depraved indifference is a culpable mental state which “is best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life” … . Thus, “a depraved and utterly indifferent actor is someone who does not care if another is injured or killed” (id. [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Due to the wanton nature of this mens rea, “depraved indifference murder properly applies only to a small, and finite, category of cases where the conduct is at least as morally reprehensible as intentional murder” … .

A defendant who knowingly pursues risky behavior that endangers others does not necessarily evince depraved indifference by engaging in that conduct. As we have explained, “[a] person who is depravedly indifferent is not just willing to take a grossly unreasonable risk to human life — that person does not care how the risk turns out” … . “The element of depraved indifference to human life comprises both depravity and indifference, and has meaning independent of recklessness and the gravity of the risk created” … . In short, the mens rea of depraved indifference will rarely be established by risky behavior alone. People v Maldonado, 2014 NY Slip Op 04878, CtApp 7-1-14

 

,

Albany County Cyberbullying Criminal Statute Overly Broad

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, over a dissent, determined that a statute passed by the Albany County Legislature, aimed at criminalizing cyberbullying, was too vague and broad to survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment:

Based on the text of the statute at issue, it is evident that Albany County “create[d] a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth”… . The language of the local law embraces a wide array of applications that prohibit types of protected speech far beyond the cyberbullying of children … . As written, the Albany County law in its broadest sense criminalizes “any act of communicating . . . by mechanical or electronic means . . . with no legitimate . . . personal . . . purpose, with the intent to harass [or] annoy. . . another person.” On its face, the law covers communications aimed at adults, and fictitious or corporate entities, even though the county legislature justified passage of the provision based on the detrimental effects that cyberbullying has on school-aged children. The county law also lists particular examples of covered communications, such as “posting statements on the internet or through a computer or email network, disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs; disseminating private, personal, false or sexual information, or sending hate mail.” But such methods of expression are not limited to instances of cyberbullying — the law includes every conceivable form of electronic communication, such as telephone conversations, a ham radio transmission or even a telegram. In addition, the provision pertains to electronic communications that are meant to “harass, annoy . . . taunt . . . [or] humiliate” any person or entity, not just those that are intended to “threaten, abuse . . . intimidate, torment . . . or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on” a child. In considering the facial implications, it appears that the provision would criminalize a broad spectrum of speech outside the popular understanding of cyberbullying, including, for example: an email disclosing private information about a corporation or a telephone conversation meant to annoy an adult.  People v Marquan M, 2014 NY Slip Op 04881, CtApp 7-1-14

 

Count Rendered Duplicitous by Trial Evidence Dismissed

The Fourth Department determined one count of an indictment had been rendered duplicitous by the trial evidence.  The indictment charged the theft of a bicycle.  However the trial evidence alleged the theft of two bicycles.  Therefore it is possible the jury was not unanimous in determining a specific bicycle had been stolen:

Because defendant’s right to be tried and convicted of only those crimes charged in the indictment is fundamental and nonwaivable” …, we review defendant’s contention despite his failure to preserve it. CPL 200.30 (1) provides that “[e]ach count of an indictment may charge one offense only.” Count five of the indictment charged defendant with stealing a bicycle and thus was not facially defective. At trial, however, the evidence established that two bicycles were stolen. Consequently, ” [r]eversal is required because the jury may have convicted defendant of an unindicted [petit larceny], resulting in the usurpation by the prosecutor of the exclusive power of the [g]rand [j]ury to determine the charges’ . . . , as well as the danger that . . . different jurors convicted defendant based on different acts’ “… . People v Wade, 2014 NY Slip Op 04587, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

,

Defense Counsel’s Failure to Object to Considerable Testimony About Prior Consistent Statements Made by the Victim Concerning Alleged Sexual Abuse Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Fourth Department, over a strong two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict based upon ineffective assistance of counsel was properly denied.   The complainant was allowed to describe prior consistent statements she made about the alleged incidents of sexual abuse. In addition, the People’s expert was allowed to testify about those prior consistent statements.  Defendant’s trial counsel did not object to that testimony and she indicated she had no strategic purpose in failing to object.  The majority determined the prior consistent statements were admissible because they completed a narrative.  The dissent noted that no cases supporting the introduction of prior consistent statements to complete a narrative were found.  In the opinion of the dissenters, the prior consistent statements constituted inadmissible bolstering and defense counsel’s failure to object to them constituted ineffective assistance:

… [O]ur dissenting colleagues conclude that defense counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the testimony of the victim that she reported to her mother at age six that defendant had touched her in a sexual manner; that she reported to her sister at age 14 that defendant had raped her; and that she told a police witness and the grand jury what she told the jury during her testimony. We respectfully disagree with that conclusion. Although the dissent correctly notes that the repetition of prior consistent statements may “give to a jury an exaggerated idea of the probative force of a party’s case” … , here, the victim’s testimony constituted a narrative of events. Indeed, she did not repeat the specific allegations of her testimony, i.e., that defendant had engaged in anal penetration … . In light of defense counsel’s opening statement that the relationship between defendant, the victim and the victim’s mother was such that it could “cause someone to make fake allegations,” the narrative of events was relevant. We also disagree with our dissenting colleagues that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s remarks during summation referencing that testimony constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the remarks were a fair response to defense counsel’s summation challenging the credibility of the victim and her motivation for making the accusations …, we conclude that the failure of defense counsel to object to those comments does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel … . People v Gross, 2014 NY Slip Op 04592, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

Rebuttal Witness Properly Called by the People to Show Possible Bias of Defense Witness

The Fourth Department, over a strong two-justice dissent, determined that a rebuttal witness called by the People was properly allowed to testify to demonstrate the bias of a defense witness.  The explanation about the relevance of the rebuttal testimony is fact-specific.  The dissenters did not see the rebuttal testimony as relevant to the defense witness’ bias and did not agree that the “bias” rationale for the rebuttal was actually raised in the trial court:

…[T]he rebuttal witness was properly called to give testimony that was relevant to the defense witness’s bias or motive to fabricate, which is not collateral … . The defense witness was defendant’s former girlfriend, and the rebuttal witness was defendant’s ex-wife, who married defendant after he and the defense witness ended their romantic relationship. In her cross-examination of the defense witness, the prosecutor attempted to show that defendant and the defense witness were romantically involved at the time of the trial, but the defense witness would admit only that she and defendant were friends, and claimed that she and defendant had been friends “all along,” i.e., they were friends even when defendant and the rebuttal witness were married. The prosecutor informed the court that she wanted to call the rebuttal witness to rebut the defense witness’s testimony that she and defendant were “friends this entire time.” We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the rebuttal witness should not have been allowed to testify. Reading the prosecutor’s colloquy with the court on this issue, together with her cross-examination of the defense witness, we conclude that the purpose of calling the rebuttal witness was to show that defendant and the defense witness were romantically involved at the time of the trial, which the prosecutor believed could be inferred if the defense witness and defendant had not been friends when he was married to the rebuttal witness.

We also disagree with our dissenting colleagues that our affirmance of the trial court’s ruling violates People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192). The Court of Appeals has ” construed CPL 470.15 (1) as a legislative restriction on the Appellate Division’s power to review issues either decided in an appellant’s favor, or not ruled upon, by the trial court’ ” (id. at 195). Contrary to the position of the dissent, we are not affirming on a ground that is different from that determined by the court. The court allowed the rebuttal witness to testify for the “limited purpose” of whether the defense witness and defendant were friends, and we conclude that the court’s determination was proper. We simply differ from the dissent in our interpretation of the meaning of the rebuttal witness’s testimony tending to show that the defense witness and defendant were not friends after defendant married the rebuttal witness.  People v Nicholson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04611, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

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