You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Pretrial Motion to Dismiss the Accusatory Instrument, Arguing the Facts Alleged Did Not Constitute the Crime Charged, Preserved the Legal-Sufficiency Issue for Appeal, Despite the Absence of a Motion for a Trial Order of Dismissal on the Same Ground

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, with three judges dissenting, determined defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the facts alleged by the People did not constitute the crime charged, preserved the “legal sufficiency” issue for appeal, despite the absence of a motion for a trial order of dismissal on the same ground. The defendant was charged with trespass and resisting arrest. The defendant had permission to be on the property.  County court had dismissed the trespass conviction, but upheld the resisting arrest conviction.  The Court of Appeals determined the arresting officer, because of prior dealings with the defendant, did not have probable cause to believe the defendant was trespassing, therefore the resisting arrest charge could not stand either.  The bulk of the majority opinion, and both dissenting opinions, dealt with the preservation issue.  The majority took great pains to explain that this holding did not affect the two leading cases concerning the preservation requirements re: the insufficiency of trial evidence (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56):

As a general matter, a lawyer is not required, in order to preserve a point, to repeat an argument that the court has definitively rejected … . When a court rules, a litigant is entitled to take the court at its word. Contrary to what the dissent appears to suggest, a defendant is not required to repeat an argument whenever there is a new proceeding or a new judge.

It is true that a challenge to the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument at arraignment is conceptually different from a challenge based on the proof at trial, and that often an issue decided in one proceeding will not be the same as the issue presented in another. But here the issue was the same. People v Finch, 2014 NY Slip Op 03424, CtApp 5-13-14

 

,

Courts Charged with Supervising Defendants Found Not Responsible by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect Have the Power To Impose a Condition Allowing the Office of Mental Health to Seek Judicial Approval for a Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluation When the Defendant Does Not Comply with Release Conditions and Refuses to Be Examined Voluntarily

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined that a court charged with supervising a defendant who has been found not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect can include in “an order of conditions a provision allowing the [NYS] Office of Mental Health (OMH) to seek judicial approval of a mandatory psychiatric evaluation in a secure facility when a defendant found not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect fails to comply with the conditions of his release and refuses to undergo voluntary examination.”  The appellate division had held that Criminal Procedure Law section 330.20 prohibited the inclusion of such a requirement in an order of conditions:

Section 330.20 mandates an order of conditions whenever a track-one defendant moves from secure to nonsecure confinement, or is no longer institutionalized (Criminal Procedure Law § 330.20 [11], [12]), and allows the court to fashion these orders in whatever way, in its judgment, most effectively protects the public while serving the defendant's interest in remaining in the least restrictive environment possible. “[T]he order of conditions is the vehicle by which the . . . court effectuates its continuing supervisory authority over” a defendant found not responsible for a crime by reason of mental disease or defect … . And while the Commissioner and the district attorney may appeal from an order of conditions, the defendant may not (see Criminal Procedure Law § 330.20 [21]). This insulates the supervising court from a defendant's attempt to argue that a condition, thought by the judge to be a necessary prophylactic measure, excessively restricts his freedom.

Accordingly, section 330.20 authorizes orders that, along with a prescribed treatment plan, include “any other condition which the court determines to be reasonably necessary or appropriate” (Criminal Procedure Law § 330.20 [1] [o] [emphases added]). * * *

The effective-evaluation provision enables OMH to evaluate a track-one defendant who does not comply with court-ordered conditions and refuses to be examined voluntarily. Track-one defendants are released into the community with the express understanding that they may endanger the public and themselves if their mental health declines. Indeed, reported cases illustrate the perils posed when such defendants do not follow the regime designed by mental-health professionals and imposed by courts to safeguard their stability and functioning in the community … . The dangers of noncompliance are exacerbated when a track-one defendant also refuses to submit to a psychiatric evaluation thereby denying vital information to the Commissioner, whom section 330.20 (12) makes responsible for ensuring compliance with orders of conditions issued with release orders. Matter of Allen B v Sprout, 2014 NY Slip Op 03427, CtApp 5-13-14

 

,

Response to Sex Offender Treatment Program Must Be “Exceptional” to Warrant Downward Departure (SORA)

The Second Department noted that defendant did not present sufficient support for a downward departure based upon his participation in a sex offender treatment program because the defendant did not establish his response to treatment was “exceptional.” People v Tisman, 2014 NY Slip Op 02913, 2nd Detp 4-30-14

 

Judge’s Statement Defense Counsel Should Confine Her Opening to What She Intended to Prove, Under the Facts, Did Not Shift Burden of Proof

The Second Department determined the trial judge’s admonition to defense counsel to confine her opening statement to what she intended to prove did not shift the burden of proof:

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court’s admonitions to defense counsel to confine her opening statement to what she intended to prove did not shift the burden of proof. The court thoroughly instructed the jury that the defense did not have to make an opening statement, that the burden of proof remained with the People, and that the defendant had no burden … . Furthermore, the court’s comments did not prevent defense counsel from completing her opening statement, or overly restrict her opening statement … . Under the circumstances of this case, there is no realistic view that the court’s remarks could be interpreted so as to skew the burden of proof .. . The court’s remarks were brief, isolated, and innocuous in context … . People v Robles, 2014 NY Slip Op 02960, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

,

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing On the Ground It Was Untimely/The Motion Raised Legal Grounds for Relief (Evidence Withheld at Trial) and There Is No Time Limit for a Motion to Vacate a Conviction Pursuant to CPL 440.10

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without a hearing on the ground it was untimely.  Defendant had raised substantive, supported claims that Brady and Rosario material had not been turned over to him at trial.  The Second Department noted there is no time limit for bringing a motion to vacate a conviction pursuant to Criminal Procedure law section 440.10:

…[T]he defendant’s moving papers allege a ground constituting legal basis for the motion, i.e., that “[i]mproper and prejudicial conduct not appearing in the record occurred during a trial resulting in the judgment which conduct, if it had appeared in the record, would have required a reversal of the judgment upon an appeal therefrom” (CPL 440.10[f]). The County Court erred in denying the motion on the ground that the defendant unduly delayed making the allegations of Brady and Rosario violations, as “[t]here is no time limit on the filing of CPL 440.10 motions” … . Further, the moving papers were sufficient to establish entitlement to a hearing … . People v Taylor, 2014 NY Slip Op 02964, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

,

Evidence of Gang Membership Properly Admitted to Show Motive for Assault

The Second Department determined evidence of defendant’s membership in a gang, including expert evidence, was properly admitted in light of defense counsel’s argument defendant had no motive to assault correction officers.  People v Murray, 2014 NY Slip Op 02957, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

,

Defense Counsel’s Denial of Defendant’s Assertion He Was Forced to Plead Guilty Required Assignment of New Counsel

The Second Department determined defense counsel’s denial of defendant’s claim he was forced to plead quilty by defense counsel’s telling him a rejection of the plea offer would result in a much greater sentence effectively made defense counsel a witness against her client.  A new attorney should have been assigned at that point to protect defendant’s right to counsel.  People v Barr, 2014 NY Slip Op 02949, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

Detective’s Strongly Urging Defendant to Make a Statement Did Not Render Statement Involuntary

The First Department determined the detective’s urging defendant to make a statement did not render defendant’s statement involuntary:

…[P]rior to administering Miranda warnings, for a period of approximately 20 minutes, [the detective] urged defendant to talk to the police and “gave him several reasons why he should.” The detective properly conveyed to defendant that he knew defendant was involved in the crime, stating “point blank” that the evidence against defendant was strong, including videotape and eyewitness evidence. He urged defendant to take advantage of “your chance” to speak before the other suspects implicated him … . The detective also told defendant that cooperation could be beneficial and that the detective would “call the D.A.” once defendant “put down” his story. After defendant indicated that he wanted to talk, he was read his Miranda rights, waived them, and proceeded to make several written statement and one videotaped statement.There is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant’s will was overborne or that the detective’s preliminary remarks tricked, cajoled or threatened him into waiving his Miranda rights. People v Rutledge, 2014 NY Slip Op 02885, 1st Dept 4-29-14

 

,

Defendant Entitled to Hearing Re: Whether His Counsel Was Ineffective For Failing to Communicate an Earlier, More Lenient Plea Offer

The Second Department determined defendant had presented enough evidence to justify a hearing on whether his counsel was ineffective for failure to inform him of an earlier, more lenient, plea offer.  The court explained the legal principles involved:

…[T]he United States Supreme Court held in Missouri v Frye ( _____ US _____, _____, 132 S Ct 1399, 1410) that counsel’s failure to advise a criminal defendant of a beneficial plea agreement constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment … where the defendant establishes that there was a reasonable probability that he or she would have accepted the earlier plea offer had it been communicated to him or her, that the election to go to trial or accept a different plea agreement resulted in a harsher penalty, and that, if the prosecution had the discretion to cancel the earlier proposed plea agreement or the trial court had the discretion to refuse to accept it, there was a reasonable probability that neither the prosecution nor the trial court would have prevented the offer from being accepted or implemented. In Lafler v Cooper ( _____ US _____, _____, 132 S Ct 1376, 1391), which was decided on the same day as Missouri v Frye, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the remedy for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that results in a harsher sentence than that initially proposed to the defendant pursuant to a plea agreement is to direct the People to reoffer the plea agreement.

Given the defendant’s detailed allegations on the record, which had first been brought to the Supreme Court’s attention more than one month before the defendant pleaded guilty, the court should have addressed the contention. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and a report on the defendant’s contention that the People had previously made a more lenient plea offer than the one which he ultimately accepted. The defendant has the burden of establishing that the People made that plea offer, including a determinate term of imprisonment of three years in connection with a plea of guilty to a lesser count …, that his first assigned counsel did not adequately inform him of that offer …, that there is a sufficient likelihood that he would have accepted the offer had counsel adequately communicated it to him …, and that there is a reasonable likelihood that neither the People nor the court would have blocked the alleged agreement…  .  People v Maldonado, 2014 NY Slip Op 02800, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

,

Show-Up Identification Procedure Unduly Suggestive

Although deemed harmless error, the Second Department determined the show-up identification of the defendant was unduly suggestive.  The defendant had already been arrested when he was pulled to a standing position in front of the victim for identification (for the second time).  At that point there were no “exigent circumstances” to justify the procedure used:

While the defendant bears the ultimate burden of proving that a showup procedure is unduly suggestive and subject to suppression, “the People have the initial burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness in a pretrial identification procedure” … . “The People’s burden consists of two elements. First, the People must demonstrate that the showup was reasonable under the circumstances. Proof that the showup was conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime will generally satisfy this element of the People’s burden'” … . However, “[t]he People also have the burden of producing some evidence relating to the showup itself, in order to demonstrate that the procedure was not unduly suggestive” … .

The People established that the showup “was conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime” … . However, they failed to demonstrate that the procedure was not unduly suggestive. The fact that a defendant is handcuffed and in the presence of police officers, standing alone, does not render a showup unduly suggestive …, even where “the victim had been told that the police had a suspect in custody” … . Here, however, the complainant was given two opportunities to identify the same man as the perpetrator. The second time, police officers pulled the defendant into a standing position and escorted him to where the complainant was standing. At that juncture, the defendant was under arrest and Officer Fallace acknowledged that “[t]here was no rush at that point.” Therefore, there were no exigent circumstances justifying the procedures employed. The above-described circumstances, when “viewed cumulatively,” establish that “the showup identification was unduly suggestive” … . Further, there was no hearing or finding on the question of whether the complainant’s in-court identification had an independent source … . People v Ward, 2014 NY Slip Op 02809, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

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