You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Intent Must Exist Simultaneously with the Act/Accidental Discharge of a Firearm, Even Where the Shooter Intends to Assault the Victim, Does Not Constitute Intentional Assault/Loss of Police Officer’s Handwritten Notes Did Not Mandate Adverse Inference Jury Charge—Insufficient Showing of Prejudice

The First Department determined the trial court did not give the right response to a question from the jury and reversed the intentional assault conviction.  The jury asked whether a person who intends to commit assault is guilty of intentional assault if the gun goes off accidentally.  The trial court answered “yes.”  The First Department determined the answer should have been “no” because the intent must be simultaneous with the act.  The First Department further determined that the loss of the police officer’s handwritten notes was a Brady/Rosario violation, but the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice flowing from the loss:

We agree with defendant that the court’s response erroneously allowed the jury to find defendant guilty of intentional assault without finding that the intent element of that crime existed beyond a reasonable doubt. “It is a well-established rule of law that the intent to commit a crime must be present at the time the criminal act takes place” … . The intent element is not satisfied if, as in the jury’s hypothetical, the individual does not intend to pull the trigger at the moment the gun discharges. While those facts might have supported liability for a crime requiring a lesser mens rea than acting intentionally, defendant here was not charged with such a crime. Because the court’s response to the jury’s note incorrectly signaled that an accidental firing of the gun could support a conviction for intentional assault, the conviction on that count must be reversed. People v Lee, 2014 NY Slip Op 02507, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

Facts Admitted In Guilty Plea Have Subsequently Been Found Insufficient to Constitute the Offense (Possession of Child Pornography)—Yet Vacation of the Conviction Not Warranted

The Third Department determined the fact that judicial interpretation of the law had changed since defendant’s guilty plea did not provide a basis for vacation of the plea.  The defendant contended he merely viewed child pornography on his computer but did not download, print or save them, and he was unaware the images were stored by the computer’s cache function (relying upon People v Kent, 19 NY3d 290 [2012]):

“[A]bsent misrepresentation or other impermissible conduct by state agents, a voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in the light of the then applicable law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise” … . Here, defendant’s guilty plea was unequivocal, and his motion papers failed to present any evidence that tends to establish that his plea was less than a knowing, voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives available to him at that time … . By his definitive admission of guilt, defendant thus waived his claim that the facts, as previously alleged by him, were not sufficient to establish the crime … . Accordingly, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion without a hearing. People v Mauro, 2014 NY Slip Op 02470, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

,

Remote Drug-Related Convictions and a Single DWAI Not Enough to Assess Points (in a SORA Proceeding) for Substance Abuse

The Third Department determined points for substance abuse should not have veen assessed against the defendant in a SORA proceeding:

Here, there is no indication on this record that either drugs or alcohol played a role in the offense at issue herein or in defendant’s prior sex offense. County Court relied on defendant’s 1992 convictions for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, his 2002 conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and his 2009 conviction for driving while ability impaired. However, in our view these widely spaced incidents are not of the nature or degree to establish a pattern of drug or alcohol use by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-l [5] [a] [ii]…). The 1992 convictions, as well as other information relied upon in the case summary pertaining to defendant’s drug and/or alcohol use at that time, are excessively remote …, and his 2002 conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree does not prove drug use …, leaving his 2009 conviction for driving while ability impaired as the sole evidence of defendant’s substance abuse within the past 20 years … . People v Ross, 2014 NY Slip Op 02472, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

,

Automobile Exception to Warrant Requirement Applied

The Third Department determined the police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the glove box of defendant’s car based upon information provided by a confidential informant:

…[T]here was probable cause for the search of the vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a search of a vehicle where there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found inside … . Following defendant’s arrest, the information furnished by the confidential informant provided the police with probable cause to believe that there was a large quantity of ecstasy in the glove box. Inasmuch as the police were authorized to conduct a warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle, County Court properly denied his suppression motion. People v Portelli, 2014 NY Slip Op 02467, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

,

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

 

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