You are here: / Criminal Law

Response to Jury Note Without Notice to Defendant Required Reversal and a New Trial

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined the trial court committed a mode of proceedings error by responding to a jury request for exhibits without notice to the defendant:

CPL 310.20 (1) provides that, upon retiring to deliberate, the jurors may take with them “[a]ny exhibits received in evidence at the trial which the court, after according the parties an opportunity to be heard upon the matter, in its discretion permits them to take” (emphasis added). CPL 310.30 provides that, “[a]t any time during its deliberation, the jury may request the court for further instruction or information with respect to . . . the content or substance of any trial evidence . . . Upon such a request, the court must direct that the jury be returned to the courtroom and, after notice to both the people and counsel for the defendant, and in the presence of the defendant, must give such requested information or instruction as the court deems proper” (emphasis added). Here, as part of its instructions to the jury, the court informed the jurors that “[e]xhibits that were received in evidence are available, upon your request, for your inspection and consideration.” The court, however, neither elicited on the record whether defendant, who proceeded pro se at trial, waived his right to be present when such a request was made nor informed defendant on the record that the exhibits would be given to the jury without reconvening. Prior to receiving the jury’s verdict, the court indicated that it had received a jury note “that has been marked as a Court Exhibit which was just the jury requesting certain items of evidence that had already been admitted and received in evidence, that they were provided with those items pursuant to discussions we had and what they were told before deliberations.” We note that those “discussions” do not appear to have been transcribed, and no agreement by defendant to forego the right to be present for the receipt of jury notes appears in the record before us. Inasmuch as the court failed to obtain defendant’s express agreement waiving his right to be present for the reading of the jury note at issue, we conclude that the court committed a mode of proceedings error when it provided exhibits to the jury in response to a jury note without notice to defendant, thereby requiring reversal of the judgment and a new trial … . People v Roberites, 164.1, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

,

Error to Allow Prosecutor to Elicit Testimony that Defendant Invoked His Right to Counsel

Although the error was deemed harmless, the Fourth Department noted that the prosecutor should not have been allowed to elicit testimony that defendant invoked his right to counsel:

We agree with defendant that County Court erred in allowing the People to elicit testimony that defendant invoked his right to counsel …, but we conclude that reversal is not required; the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “inasmuch as there is no reasonable possibility that the error[] might have contributed to defendant’s conviction” … .  People v Daniels, 360, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

,

No Basis in Law for “Automatic Override” Based Upon a Prior Sex Crime Conviction to Raise Sex Offender Status Above the Presumptive Level (SORA)

The Fourth Department reversed County Court’s determination that defendant, who was a presumptive level two sex offender, should be classified as a level three offender on the basis of a prior felony conviction of a sex crime.  The County Court described the authority for the upward departure as an “automatic override.”  The Fourth Department noted that an “automatic override” does not exist in this context and explained the criteria for an upward departure:

Based upon the total risk factor score of 85 points on the risk assessment instrument, defendant was presumptively classified as a level two risk. County Court determined that defendant was a level three risk based on the automatic override for a prior felony conviction of a sex crime. That was error. “[N]o basis in law exists for . . . an automatic override [to] increase[] defendant’s presumptive risk level two designation to risk level three” … . “A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . “ ‘There must exist clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstance[s] to warrant an upward or downward departure’ ” … . People v Moore, 357, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

,

Victim’s Statements Admissible as Excited Utterances Despite the Passage of Some Time Before the Statements Were Made

The Fourth Department determined the victim’s statements to an emergency medical technician were admissible as excited utterances even though some time had elapsed between the victim’s treatment and her statements.  The court determined that the stress of the situation had not diminished at the time the statements were made:

It is well settled that “[t]he admissibility of an excited utterance is entrusted in the first instance to the trial court. In making that determination, the court must ascertain whether, at the time the utterance was made, the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by an external event sufficient to still his [or her] reflective faculties, thereby preventing opportunity for deliberation which might lead the declarant to be untruthful. The court must assess not only the nature of the startling event and the amount of time which has elapsed between the occurrence and the statement, but also the activities of the declarant in the interim to ascertain if there was significant opportunity to deviate from the truth. Above all, the decisive factor is whether the surrounding circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion that the remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection” … . Notably, “the time for reflection is not measured in minutes or seconds, but rather is measured by facts” … .

There is no dispute that there was a period of time between the victim’s treatment by the EMT and her statements. During that period of time, however, the victim’s child and niece were still in the apartment with defendant, the man who had kidnapped the victim and beaten her with a loaded gun. We thus conclude that “ ‘at the time the utterance[s were] made [the victim] was in fact under the stress of excitement caused by an external event sufficient to still . . . her reflective faculties’ . . . , including both the physical and emotional stress of the [kidnapping and] beating earlier administered by defendant[,] . . . the stress of being confined in [an apartment and car] with defendant following the attack,” and the stress of having two small children still in harm’s way… . People v Miller, 191, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

Department of Corrections Must Comply with State and Federal Courts’ Expressed Intent to Impose Concurrent Sentences

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that the intent in both the state and federal proceedings was to impose concurrent sentences and ruled that the Department of Corrections could not act to make the sentences consecutive:

Issues involving sentencing by dual sovereigns are generally considered under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and occasionally give rise to complexities … . We do not need to engage in an extended discussion of the intricacies of primary jurisdiction and sentencing by dual sovereigns in this case.Succinctly stated, “[j]ust as the dual sovereignty doctrine acknowledges and protects the rights of each sovereign to exact as much punishment for a crime as that sovereign desires, the doctrine also acknowledges and protects the rights of each sovereign to exact as little punishment for the crime as that sovereign desires” … . Here, it is clear that both sovereigns intended the state and federal sentences to run concurrently. To run the sentences sequentially essentially because of the manner in which they were administered despite express intent otherwise by both sovereigns is analogous to a governmental entity other than the court lengthening a sentence, which this state does not permit …  Matter of Hall v LaValley, 515985, 3rd Dept 3-27-14

 

, ,

Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Defense Counsel’s Failure to Move to Suppress Statements, to Challenge Search Warrants, to Request Discovery and to Object to the Conduct of the Prosecutor Raised Questions of Effective Assistance

The Court of Appeals determined questions about the effectiveness of defense counsel warranted a hearing on defendant's motion to vacate his conviction.  The court found defense counsel's explanation for failing to move to suppress defendant's statements (he was interrogated for 26 hours), failure to challenge search warrants, failure to make certain discovery requests and failure to object to the conduct of the prosecutor, inadequate:

[Defense counsel's] affirmation did not, however, address why suppression could not have been sought on the basis of: the 26-hour interrogation at a State Police barracks, which occurred in a room that may have been locked at times; the possible use of handcuffs, shackles and a “jail suit” during such questioning; and a purported refusal by the police to contact the lawyer who was representing defendant in a pending criminal case because defendant's request for legal assistance was deemed “too late.” Nor did [defense counsel] provide an explanation for failing to challenge the various search warrants that were issued or the evidence that was obtained by the police. [Defense counsel] also did not attempt to justify several potential trial errors that were noted by the Appellate Division (including the possibility of inadequate discovery requests and the failure to object to prosecutorial conduct that County Court felt compelled to address sua sponte as “grossly improper”). In these particular circumstances, we conclude that there were sufficient questions of fact as to whether [defense counsel]  had an adequate explanation for his alleged deficiencies. Defendant is therefore entitled to an opportunity to establish that he was deprived of meaningful legal representation … . People v Zeh, 33, CtApp 3-27-14

 

,

Because Defendant’s Resentence to Remedy the Failure to Impose a Period of Post-Release Supervision Was On Appeal, Defendant Had Not Acquired a Legitimate Expectation of Finality in His Sentence such that the Double Jeopardy Clause Was Implicated

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined, under the facts, the imposition of a period of post-release supervision [PRS] after defendant completed his sentence (which was illegal because it did not include a period of post-release supervision) did not violate the Double Jeopardy clause.  Because the resentence was being appealed, the defendant had not yet “acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence:”

Defendant … moved to vacate his conviction under Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.10. Supreme Court denied the motion to vacate the conviction. The court nevertheless noted that defendant's sentence was illegal because it did not include the mandatory term of PRS … and ordered that defendant be resentenced. Defendant was conditionally released in May 2008. One month later, Supreme Court resentenced defendant to the original concurrent terms of imprisonment, as well as a five-year term of PRS. In October 2009, the maximum term of his prison sentence passed.   * * *

The protection against multiple punishments protects defendants from having their sentences increased once they have acquired “legitimate expectations of finality” therein (Williams, 14 NY3d at 214). We explained in Williams that a defendant may acquire a legitimate expectation of finality in an illegal sentence only once “the direct appeal has been completed (or the time to appeal has expired)” and the sentence has been served (id. at 217).

In Velez [19 NY3d 642] , we addressed whether a defendant acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in an illegal sentence where a resentencing proceeding had been instituted but the term of PRS had not yet been imposed prior to the expiration of the sentence. We held that the defendant … acquired a legitimate expectation of finality (19 NY3d at 650). In this case, defendant has served his sentence, but the direct appeal of that sentence is not over; it presently is before us. Consequently, defendant has not acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence.  People v Cintron, 35, CtApp 3-27-14

 

, ,

Dismissal of Deported Defendant’s Appeal (Without Prejudice) Appropriate Where Defendant’s Continued Participation in the Proceedings Would Be Required Should the Appeal Be Successful

The Second Department determined defendant’s appeal of his motion to vacate his conviction should be dismissed without prejudice because he had been deported and his continued participation in the proceedings would be required if the appeal were successful, distinguishing People v Ventura, 17 NY3d 675, where dismissal was not appropriate because the defendant’s participation in the case was no longer required. People v Harrison, 2014 NY Slip Op 02076, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

Trial Court’s Failure to Properly Characterize the Nature of the Jury’s Request for “Clarification” of Certain Counts Was a Reversible Mode of Proceedings Error

The Second Department determined Supreme Court committed a reversible mode of proceedings error when it mischaracterized the meaning of a jury note.  The note requested clarification of the criminal possession of a weapon counts.  The court explained the note as a request for a readback of the relevant jury instructions:

…[T]he jury requested “clarification on the counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the presence of the defendant, counsel, and the jury, the Supreme Court mischaracterized that note as asking “to have read to us the counts of” criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. In apprising counsel of the contents of that note, the Supreme Court omitted the word “clarification.” The court proceeded to provide the jury with certain legal instructions on the counts of criminal possession of weapon in the second degree. The jury’s request for “clarification” was not a request for a “mere ministerial readback” of the Supreme Court’s charge … . Meaningful notice of a jury’s note “means notice of the actual specific content of the jurors’ request. Manifestly, counsel cannot participate effectively or adequately protect the defendant’s rights if this specific information is not given” … . Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court’s mode of proceedings error requires reversal of the judgment and a new trial (see People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295-296). People v Thomas, 2014 NY Slip Op 02090, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

Plaintiff Sufficiently Raised Issue of “Actual Innocence” in Motion to Vacate His Conviction to Warrant Hearing—Affidavits from Alibi Witnesses Identified Before Trial

The Second Department determined defendant had presented sufficient evidence of “actual innocence” to support his motion to vacate his conviction to warrant a hearing:

…[O]n remittal, the Supreme Court should hold a hearing to address the defendant’s claim that the judgment of conviction should be vacated because the defendant is “actually innocent” of the crimes of which he was convicted (see CPL 440.10[1][h]; People v Hamilton, _____ AD3d _____, 2014 NY Slip Op 00238 [2d Dept 2014]). As we recognized in Hamilton, a prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is ” “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration'”” by the court… . Here, the defendant made the requisite prima facie showing. Specifically, in support of his claim of actual innocence, he submitted affidavits from alibi witnesses who, although they had been identified before trial in a notice of alibi (see CPL 250.20[1]), had not testified at trial. People v Jones, 2014 NY Slip Op 02079, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

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