You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Suicide Notes Not Protected by Marital Privilege—Substance Had Been Revealed to Third Parties

The Second Department determined that suicide notes left by the defendant were not protected by the marital privilege:

“One spouse may not, without consent, disclose a confidential communication made by the other during marriage (CPLR 4502 [b]; CPL 60.10)” … .. While a suicide note can be a communication made during marriage for the purpose of the privilege …, the spousal privilege falls “when the substance of a communication . . . is revealed to third parties” … . Here, the substance of the communication between the defendant and his wife of his intention to commit suicide through taking large quantities of Xanax was revealed by the defendant to Officer Johnstone, his neighbor, and the nurse who happened upon the scene of the accident. In addition, the defendant left the notes on the kitchen counter and directly addressed his children, as well as his wife, in one of the notes. Thus, the Supreme Court properly determined that the notes were not protected by the marital privilege … . People Jacob, 2014 NY Slip Op 03861, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

,

Loss of Small Portion of Stenographic Record Did Not Require Reversal

The First Department noted that the loss of some of the stenographic minutes of a trial did not require reversal. The trial court had conducted a reconstruction hearing:

The loss of a relatively small portion of the stenographic record does not require reversal of defendants’ convictions … . The court conducted a reconstruction hearing at which various participants in the trial presented their recollections, to the extent possible, of the brief portions of the trial for which minutes are not available. When viewed in light of the presumption of regularity (id. at 796), the facts adduced at the reconstruction hearing regarding the missing pages support an inference that the missing minutes would not have revealed any significant appellate issues. People v Negron, 2014 NY Slip Op 03752, 1st Dept 5-22-14

 

Applicant Eligible for Relief Under Drug Sentencing Reform Statute Must Be Afforded a Hearing

The Third Department noted that an applicant who is eligible of for a relief under the “drug sentencing reform” statute, CPL 440.46, must be afforded a hearing.  People v Cain, 2014 NY Slip Op 03711, 3rd Dept 5-22-14

 

Supreme Court Should Have Proceeded to Second Step of Defendant’s “Batson” Challenge Alleging the Prosecutor’s Exclusion of Jurors on the Basis of Race

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have proceeded to the second step of a “Batson” challenge alleging the prosecutor was excluding jurors on the basis of race.  The matter was sent back for a completion of the process:

As the United States Supreme Court stated in Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79), “[s];election procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice” (id. at 87). The first step under Batson requires a defendant to make a prima facie case “by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose” … . This first step “is not to be onerous,” and is satisfied “by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred” … . When a prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide a race-neutral explanation for the challenged peremptory exclusions … .

The defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination based on the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges to exclude the only two prospective jurors who were black, the same race as the defendant. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, under the circumstances of this case, those facts were sufficient to create an inference of purposeful discrimination in the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges to strike the only two jurors in the venire who were black … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have proceeded with the second step and, if applicable, the third step of the Batson inquiry. People v Chery, 2014 NY Slip Op 03697, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

,

Statement About Gang Affiliation Should Have Been Suppressed—Not Merely “Pedigree” Information

The Second Department determined that defendant’s statement about his gang affiliation should have been suppressed. The defendant had not yet been read his Miranda rights.  The People’s argument that the statement was simply part of so-called “pedigree” information (like “address” and “phone number”) was rejected.  The error was deemed harmless however.  People v Hiraeta, 2014 NY Slip Op 03698, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

,

Supreme Court’s Finding Respondent Was No Longer Suffering from a Dangerous Mental Condition Reversed

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, over a partial dissent, determined Supreme Court erred in finding that the respondent no longer suffers from a dangerous mental condition and could be released from a secure psychiatric facility.  Respondent is now 74 years old and had stabbed a woman 20 years ago.  He refuses to take medication and he refused to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by the Office of Mental health. There were stark differences in the assessment of his mental condition presented at a hearing pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 330.20.  The experts arguing for continued retention were named Simon-Phelan and Formica:

Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03(20) defines a mental illness as “an affliction with a mental disease or mental condition which is manifested by a disorder or disturbance in behavior, feeling, thinking, or judgment to such an extent that the person afflicted requires care, treatment and rehabilitation” (Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03[20]).

Upon our review of the record, we find that the credible evidence established that the respondent suffers from a mental illness, the first element of a dangerous mental disorder (see CPL 330.20[1];[c]). Simon-Phelan and Formica opined that the respondent suffers from bipolar disorder, along with various personality disorders, whether narcissistic, grandiose, or antisocial. Most relevant, the respondent’s behaviors, consistently displayed over the past 20 years, as thoroughly documented throughout the record, are indicative of these disorders. These behaviors include his aggressive and violent acts, his abrasiveness when speaking to others, his refusal to follow rules, his inappropriate sexual advances, his inflated self-esteem, his high level of energy, his excessive writing, and his overzealousness with respect to litigation … . Although the categorization of the respondent’s mental illness has differed between mental health professionals, a number of professionals have drawn the same conclusions as Simon-Phelan and Formica, dating back as far as 1994. As one psychiatrist put it in 2003, the debate about whether the respondent’s “pathology is Axis I or Axis II or some combination thereof . . . can be carried on indefinitely,” but when one considers his symptomatic exacerbation, poor judgment, and poor impulse control, all of which continue to exist, he remains in “the category of dangerously mentally ill.” Matter of Marvin P, 2014 NY Slip Op 03690, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

Court Has Inherent Authority to Reinstate Indictment After Dismissal for Legal Insufficiency

The First Department determined the motion court properly exercised its discretion in reinstating the indictment when presented with a portion of the grand jury minutes which had inadvertently been omitted from the original submission.  The court had dismissed the indictment finding the grand jury evidence legally insufficient:

The court had inherent authority to reinstate the indictment …, and defendant’s claim that the indictment was unlawfully amended is without merit, because the text of the indictment remained unchanged. People v Godbold, 2014 NY Slip Op 03624, 1st Dept 5-20-14

 

,

Codefendant’s Statement Was Admissible—the Fact that the Statement Implicated the Defendant in the Light of Other Trial Evidence Did Not Violate Defendant’s Right of Confrontation

The Third Department determined a co-defendant’s statement, which had been redacted to exclude references to the defendant, was admissible.  The defendant’s argument that the statement implicated him in the light of the trial evidence was rejected:

A defendant’s right to confront witnesses is violated by the admission of “the facially incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant” …; however, no such violation occurs where, as here, the codefendant’s statement incriminates the defendant only in light of other evidence produced at trial … . Nor did the use of plural pronouns such as “we” and “they” in the statement necessarily indicate any involvement by defendant … . Accordingly, the statement was admissible, and defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated by the People’s arguments that drew inferences about his participation by linking the statement with other trial evidence … . People v Maschio, 2014 NY Slip Op 03551, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

, ,

Violation of Right to Counsel Deemed Harmless Error

The Second Department noted that a violation of a defendant’s right to counsel is subject to a harmless error analysis.  Here the police were contacted by an attorney who told the police he was representing the defendant and not to question him if and when he is apprehended.  The court determined defendant’s right to counsel was violated when the police questioned him, but found the error harmless:

The right to counsel attaches, inter alia, when an attorney who is retained to represent a suspect enters the matter under investigation … . When an attorney enters a case to represent the accused, the police may not question the accused about that matter regardless of whether the person is in police custody … . “An attorney enters’ a case by actually appearing or directly communicating with the police by telephone” … . The issue of whether an [*2]attorney has entered a case is not dependent upon whether that attorney has been personally retained by the defendant, or has instead been retained by a member of the defendant’s family … . * * *

A violation of the indelible right to counsel does not automatically constitute reversible error. Instead it is reviewed under the harmless error doctrine for constitutional violations … . Constitutional errors are “considered harmless when, in light of the totality of the evidence, there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the jury’s verdict” … . If no such possibility exists, the error is deemed to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Ellis, 2014 NY Slip Op 03530, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

Judge Properly Refused to Accept Defendant’s Plea to a Lesser Offense Because the Prosecutor Objected to the Plea Allocution as Insufficient

The Second Department determined the judge properly refused to accept defendant’s plea to a lesser offense when the prosecutor objected to the plea colloquy as insufficient:

“Since, in effect, permission to enter a lesser plea is a matter of grace, reasonable conditions may be attached thereto. What is reasonable is generally a question of fact attendant upon the circumstances” … . “A District Attorney may dictate the terms under which he [or she] will agree to consent to accept a guilty plea and where his terms are not met, he [or she] may withhold such consent; the withholding of such consent by statutory mandate renders the court without authority to accept a plea to anything less than the entire indictment” … . Here, in view of the prosecutor’s objections to the plea allocution, the court did not err in refusing to accept the plea … . People v Swails, 2014 NY Slip Op 03545, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

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