You are here: / Criminal Law
,

No Justification for Handcuffing Defendant/Handcuffing Constituted an Arrest Before Officer Had Probable Cause to Arrest

The First Department determined probable cause for defendant’s arrest did not exist when defendant was handcuffed and the act of handcuffing constituted an arrest, not a detention pending information providing probable cause:

During a buy and bust operation, a ghost undercover detective issued a radio transmission identifying defendant as a participant in a drug sale, made to another undercover officer. Based on that radio transmission describing defendant and his location, a third officer approached defendant on the sidewalk, identified himself, and asked defendant to put his hands up. When defendant acted “a little resistant,” the officer attempted to handcuff him. Defendant then resisted, and the police forcibly handcuffed him.

The suppression court [ruled] that although when the officer stopped the defendant, he did not have probable cause to arrest him based on the information that he had received from the radio transmission, the officer obtained probable cause to arrest defendant after the purchasing undercover officer subsequently radioed his confirmatory identification. …[By] finding that there was no probable cause to arrest defendant until the confirmatory identification, the court implicitly found that the initial apprehension, which preceded that identification, was a proper temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion and that the application of handcuffs on defendant did not transform the detention into a full-scale arrest.

…[W]e reject the People’s argument that defendant was not under arrest at the point when he was handcuffed. Although the use of handcuffs is not dispositive of whether an investigatory detention on reasonable suspicion has been elevated to an arrest, handcuffing is permissible in such a detention only when justified by the circumstances … . In this case, the police had no reason to believe that defendant was either armed or dangerous. Nor was there any indication on the record that defendant offered any resistance prior to the handcuffing, or gave the police any reason to believe that he might flee. People v Blanding, 2014 NY Slip Op 02508, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

Unauthorized Use of Another’s Credit Card Number Is Not Identity Theft Where the Card Owner’s Identity Is Not Otherwise Assumed/Unauthorized Use of Another’s Credit Card Number Can Constitute Possession of Stolen Property

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined: (1) the use of another’s credit card number does not constitute identity theft unless the person using the number assumes the other’s identity; and (3) the use of another’s credit card number constitutes possession of stolen property: THIS CASE HAS BEEN REVERSED

This appeal raises questions about the elements of identity theft and whether intangible property can be criminally possessed, where a defendant used his associate’s credit card number to pay for hotel expenses without authorization. Specifically, we are called upon to determine, first, whether assumption of identity is a discrete element of identity theft or whether it occurs automatically when a person uses another’s personal identifying information, and second, whether criminal possession of stolen property includes intangible property, namely a credit card number. Regarding the first issue, we find that to secure a conviction for identity theft the People must prove not only that a defendant used another’s personal identifying information, but that he or she consequently assumed the identity of that person. Because the hotel was aware of defendant’s identity, he did not assume the identity of his associate by charging the credit card and, accordingly, the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of identity theft. As to the second issue, we have determined that the legislature intended intangibles, including credit card numbers, to fall within the ambit of criminal possession of stolen property. Defendant constructively possessed his associate’s stolen credit card number, and thus he was properly convicted of the latter offense. People v Barden, 2014 NY Slip Op 02527, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

Courtroom Properly Closed During Testimony of Undercover Office

The First Department determined the trial court properly closed the courtroom and excluded defendant’s sister from the courtroom during the testimony of  the undercover officer:

…[T]he evidence established the type of overriding interest warranting the limited closure of the courtroom that has been upheld … . The undercover officer’s testimony at the hearing supported the court’s finding that testifying at trial in an open courtroom would compromise his undercover work and jeopardize his and his family’s safety … . The officer testified that he had been working undercover for four years, that he was on active duty and bought drugs for buy and bust arrests three or four times per week, and that he had made about 10 purchases near where he bought the drugs from defendant. The officer further testified that several of his investigations were ongoing, that certain targets remained at large, that he had been verbally threatened while working undercover, and that he took numerous precautions to conceal his identity when he had to testify in court. The court’s decision to exclude defendant’s sister, who lived within two blocks of the location where the officer bought drugs from defendant and where he continued to work undercover, is consistent with our prior holdings … . The officer testified that he was concerned that defendant’s sister might expose his identity. * * *

…[A]s the Court of Appeals has held, where the record in a buy-and-bust case “makes no mention of alternatives but is otherwise sufficient to establish the need to close the particular proceeding . . . it can be implied that the trial court, in ordering closure, determined that no lesser alternative would protect the articulated interest” … . People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 02510, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

,

Weight of the Evidence Review Required Reversal

The Second Department determined the defendant’s conviction was not supported by the weight of the evidence—there were too many unexplained problems in the People’s proof:

Although great deference is accorded the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor …, objective facts, which were not adequately explained, cast doubt upon the officers’ credibility, including the loss of the arresting officer’s memo book, the fact that the ammunition allegedly retrieved from the gun was only submitted to the police laboratory for analysis five days after the gun was submitted for analysis, and the fact that a photograph of the gun was exhibited in the precinct with a caption referring to a white lie. Further, the eyewitness who initially called the police to the scene testified at the trial that the man involved in the incident was not the defendant, and that the police arrested the wrong man. Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15), we find that the rational inferences which can be drawn from the evidence presented at trial do not support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the judgment must be reversed and the indictment dismissed… . People v Battle, 2014 NY Slip Op 02447, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

,

When the Police Are Aware Suspect Is Represented by an Attorney and the Attorney’s Assistance Is Specifically Requested, the Attorney Must Be Contacted Before Conducting a Lineup Identification Procedure

Although the issue was not raised by the facts in the case, the Second Department noted the proper procedure for a lineup when the police are aware the suspect is represented by an attorney:

Where police are “aware that a . . . defendant is represented by counsel and the defendant explicitly requests the assistance of his attorney,” the police may not proceed with a lineup procedure, “without at least apprising the defendant’s lawyer of the situation and affording him or her an opportunity to appear” … . People v Blyden, 2014 NY Slip Op 02448, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

Failure to Give the Jury Instruction on Intoxication Required Reversal

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding that the trial court erred by not giving the intoxication charge to the jury.  There was sufficient evidence defendant was so intoxicated at the time he committed the sexual offense, he could not form the requisite intent:

According to the defendant, during the night or early morning before he committed the instant offense, he finished drinking a “big” bottle of vodka. Then, within the hour leading up to the crime, he “kept pouring cognac” in his coffee and drinking it. The complainant observed the defendant drinking cognac shortly before he committed the crime, and observed that he “smelled a little bit like” alcohol. Additionally, the complainant’s mother knew that the defendant had a bottle of cognac in his possession because she had bought him a bottle as a gift.

The defendant further testified that, before he committed the acts constituting the instant offense, he “started to feel like out of [his] mind” and he did not have “control of the situation.” The complainant testified that, before the defendant committed the criminal acts against her, he said several “weird” things to her and acted in a “weird” manner. She opined that the defendant “wasn’t thinking” when he committed the instant offense.

With the foregoing in mind, we conclude that “there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis” … .

Contrary to the People’s contention, intent is an element of criminal sexual act in the first degree, and ” the intent required is the intent to perform the prohibited act—i.e., the intent to forcibly compel another to engage in [oral or] anal sexual conduct”‘ … . People v Velcher, 2014 NY Slip Op 02464, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

, ,

Children’s Out-Of-Court Statements May Corroborate One Another

The Second Department noted that out-of-court statements by children can corroborate one another in a sexual abuse case:

The Family Court’s determination that the maternal stepgrandfather sexually abused the subject children was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[e], [g]; 1046[b][i]…).  “It is well established that the out-of-court statements of siblings may properly be used to cross-corroborate one another” … . Here, the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing established that, in May 2011, then-10-year-old Naziya D. and 3-year-old Jada A. made independent and consistent out-of-court statements to several individuals describing similar incidents of sexual abuse by the maternal stepgrandfather. Further, the children’s statements were corroborated by the petitioner’s progress notes and the mother’s testimony as to the children’s statements … .Additionally, where, as here, the Family Court is primarily confronted with issues of credibility, its findings must be accorded deference on appeal, as they were supported by the record … .The Family Court, upon a finding of abuse pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012(e), must make a further finding of the specific sex offenses that were committed, as defined in Penal Law article 130 … .  Even if the Family Court fails to make such a finding, this Court can make the finding that the Family Court should have made… . Matter of Jada A, 2014 Slip Op 02430, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

,

Waiver of Appeal Invalid

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal, which included a written waiver, was invalid:

A waiver of the right to appeal is effective only so long as the record demonstrates that it was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily” … . ” Though a trial court need not engage in any particular litany’ or catechism in satisfying itself that a defendant had entered a knowing, intelligent and voluntary appeal waiver, a trial court must make certain that a defendant’s understanding’ of the waiver . . . is evident on the face of the record” … . Further, it must be made clear to the defendant that an appeal waiver ” is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty'” … . “A detailed written waiver can supplement a court’s on-the-record explanation of what a waiver of the right to appeal entails, but a written waiver does not, standing alone, provide sufficient assurance that the defendant is knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily giving up his or her right to appeal as a condition of the plea agreement'” … .

Here, although the defendant executed a written waiver of his right to appeal, the defendant’s understanding of the appeal waiver is not evident on the face of the record due to the deficiency of the oral colloquy conducted by the Supreme Court in light of the absence of any mention of the waiver during the discussion of the terms of the plea. After the plea agreement had been reached, the court told the defendant that “[b]efore I accept your plea, you need to sign a waiver of your right to appeal.” First, the court’s “terse colloquy [which included this mandatory-sounding language] at the plea allocution failed to sufficiently advise the defendant of the nature of his right to appeal” … . Second, the court suggested that the right to appeal is automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty when it advised the defendant that the written appeal waiver “tells me you understand the rights you have waived by pleading guilty” … . Accordingly, under these circumstances, including the defendant’s relative inexperience with the criminal justice system …, the defendant’s appeal waiver was invalid … .  People v Pressley, 2014 NY Slip Op 02461, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

Criteria for Submission of Lesser Included Offense Explained

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined the trial court properly refused to submit the lesser included offence of reckless manslaughter to the jury.  The victim died of a deep, forceful stab wound.  The pathologist testified the wound could not have been inflicted by waving a knife around, which is what the defendant claimed he did.  In explaining the criteria for submission of a lesser included offense, the Court of Appeals wrote:

A party who seeks to have a lesser included crime charged to the jury must satisfy a two-pronged inquiry. First, the crime must be a lesser included offense within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law § 1.20 (37). Here, defendant asked the trial judge to charge second-degree manslaughter, which is a lesser included crime of second-degree intentional murder … . Second, the party making the request for a charge-down “must then show that there is a reasonable view of the evidence in the particular case that would support a finding that [the defendant] committed the lesser included offense, but not the greater” (…Criminal Procedure Law § 300.50 [1]…). In assessing whether there is a “reasonable view of the evidence,” the proof must be looked at “in the light most favorable to the defendant” …, which requires awareness of “the jury’s right to accept some part of the evidence presented by either side and reject other parts of that proof” … . We have never, however, “countenance[d] selective dissection of the integrated testimony of a single witness as to whom credibility, or incredibility, could only be a constant factor” … .

A “reasonable view of the evidence” does not mean, as defendant insists, that a trial court must charge reckless manslaughter as a lesser included offense of second-degree murder unless the record “completely excludes the possibility that the defendant acted recklessly.” People v Rivera, 2014 NY Slip Op 02379, CtApp 4-8-14

 

,

Gabriela A’s Actions Constituted Disobedience Under PINS Criteria, Not Criminal Actions (Resisting Arrest/Obstruction of Governmental Administration) Under Juvenile Delinquency Criteria

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined, under the facts,  a “Person In Need of Supervision (PINS)” should not have been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent.  Gabriela A., a PINS who had left the non-secure facility where she was placed, apparently resisted to some extent when police officers came to return her to the facility. After the fact-finding hearing, Gabriela A was placed in a secure facility pending disposition. Family Court ultimately determined Gabriela A was a juvenile delinquent finding Gabriele A had committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the criminal offenses of obstruction of governmental administration and resisting arrest. The Court of Appeals did not rule out the procedure used by Family Court, which essentially converted a PINS proceeding to a Juvenile delinquency proceeding. Rather, the court determined, under the facts, Gabriela A’s behavior was properly characterized as PINS behavior, not criminal behavior:

The crime of resisting arrest requires that a person intentionally prevent “an authorized arrest” (Penal Law § 205.30). The restraint of a PINS pursuant to Family Court Act § 718, however, is not the same as a criminal arrest … . A PINS proceeding is fundamentally civil in nature. … Thus, a PINS who resists being restrained or transported back to a placement facility is not resisting arrest within the meaning of Penal Law § 205.30.

Next, a person is guilty of the misdemeanor of obstructing governmental administration when he or she “intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference” (Penal Law § 195.05). Probation officers qualify as “public servants” within the broad definition supplied in the Penal Law (see Penal Law § 10.00 [15]), and Gabriela A. admitted that she wanted to “make it hard” for Officer Flores and the other probation officers to handcuff and take her to the non-secure facility. On the other hand, the legislature has defined a PINS to include someone who is “habitually disobedient and beyond the lawful control of . . . lawful authority” (Family Court Act § 712 [a]). Thus, a PINS’s disobedience and obstruction of “lawful authority” is not necessarily the same as an adult’s. Since Family Court Act §§ 720 (1) and (2) forbid placement of a PINS in a secure facility, the legislature surely did not intend the type of behavior that might cause a child to be designated a PINS in the first place to become the basis for secure detention … .  Matter of Gabriela A, 2014 NY Slip Op 02376, CtApp, 4-8-14

 

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