You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Probable Cause to Search Vehicle for a Weapon After Defendant’s Arrest Provided by Identified Citizen Informant

The Fourth Department determined a weapon was properly seized from a vehicle after defendant’s valid arrest based on information from an identified citizen informant:

It is well settled that, “ ‘where police have validly arrested an occupant of an automobile, and they have reason to believe that [it] may contain evidence related to the crime for which the occupant was arrested or that a weapon may be discovered or a means of escape thwarted, they may contemporaneously search the passenger compartment, including any containers found therein’ ” … .Here, as noted, there is no dispute that defendant was lawfully stopped and arrested. Rather, the issue before us is whether the police lawfully searched the vehicle defendant was driving. Even assuming, without deciding, that the police did not conduct a lawful inventory search, we conclude that a search was authorized because the police had probable cause to believe that a gun was inside the vehicle. Probable cause arose from the information provided to the police by the identified citizen informant, who stated that she observed one of the occupants of defendant’s vehicle in possession of what appeared to be a handgun used in the abduction of her boyfriend. “An identified citizen informant is presumed to be personally reliable” …  and, here, the informant had a sufficient basis of knowledge inasmuch as she personally observed the weapon in question… . People v Holmes, 95, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

Grand Jury Proceedings Not Rendered Defective by Prosecutor’s Introduction of New Evidence After First True Bill Voted

The Fourth Department determined an indictment should not have been dismissed.  The grand jury proceedings were not rendered defective when the prosecutor reopened the proceedings to introduce more evidence after the grand jury voted the first true bill:

… [T]he court held that the grand jury proceedings were defective because the People, without seeking a formal vote of at least 12 members of the grand jury, submitted additional evidence after the grand jury had voted the first true bill, but before an indictment had been filed. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, Cade [74 NY2d 410] does not hold that a grand jury must vote to vacate a prior true bill that has not been filed as an indictment in order to reopen the proceedings and introduce additional evidence in support of proposed charges that were not previously considered by the grand jury … . Indeed, in Cade, the Court of Appeals noted that there are reasons, other than a prosecutor’s belief that the evidence before the grand jury was inadequate or that dismissal was likely, “why a prosecutor or a [g]rand [j]ury would choose to reopen the evidence. The prosecutor might, for example, supplement the evidence to bring additional or higher charges” … . Moreover, unlike the procedure that was in any event approved in Cade, here the prosecutor never requested that the grand jury reconsider the lower charge of assault in the second degree in light of the additional evidence … . Thus, inasmuch as there was no second presentment of that charge, the grand jury was not required to vacate its prior vote. We therefore conclude that the integrity of the grand jury was not impaired … . In view of our conclusion, we do not address the issue whether defendant was prejudiced by the procedure employed here. People v Grimes, 131, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

,

Conditioning Co-Defendant’s Plea on a Promise Not to Testify in Defendant’s Trial Is a Denial of the Right to Present a Defense

Although the Fourth Department affirmed defendant’s conviction, the court agreed with the defendant that the People improperly conditioned co-defendant’s plea upon his promise not to testify at defendant’s trial and threatened to increase the co-defendant’s sentence if he did testify.  The trial court eliminated the problem by permitting the co-defendant to testify without exposure to a more severe sentence:

We agree with defendant that it was improper for the People to condition the plea of a codefendant upon his promise not to testify at defendant’s trial and to threaten to increase the codefendant’s sentence should he violate that condition ….. As the United States Supreme Court wrote in Washington v Texas (388 US 14, 19), “[t]he right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he [or she] has the right to present his [or her] own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.” Thus, “substantial interference by the State with a defense witness’ free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process as surely as does a willful withholding of evidence” … . Here, however, defendant was not prejudiced by the improper plea condition inasmuch as the court granted his motion to permit the codefendant to testify on defendant’s behalf without exposure to a more severe sentence, and the court advised the codefendant of its ruling …. . People v Whitfield, 99, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

,

Prosecutor’s Remarks in Summation, in Combination with the Erroneous Admission of Portions of a Recorded Phone Call Made by the Defendant from Jail, Warranted Reversal

In reversing defendant’s conviction, in part, because of the prosecutor’s remarks in summation, the Second Department wrote:

…[C]ertain comments in the prosecutor’s summation were improper, including the comments in which the prosecutor denigrated the defense, vouched for the truthfulness of prosecution witnesses, and shifted the burden of proof to the defense by, inter alia, stating that the defendant had not established reasonable doubt or established that the People’s witnesses were untruthful or engaged in a “conspiracy,” and improperly commented on the defendant’s failure to call a certain witness… .  People v King, 2014 NY Slip Op 01770, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

,

Police Did Not Have Founded Suspicion of Criminal Activity When Path of Parked Car Was Blocked by Police Vehicle/Suppression of Seized Drugs Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted.  After seeing a man approach the window of a parked car, but without seeing what was exchanged, the police blocked the parked car with the police vehicle, approached and ultimately arrested defendant.  The Second Department determined blocking the path of the parked car was a “stop” and the police did not have a “founded suspicion” of criminal activity at that point:

Although the detective who stopped the defendant’s car was trained in identifying narcotics transactions and was aware of numerous drug transactions in the neighborhood, including some involving car deliveries of drugs, he did not see what the defendant and the pedestrian exchanged, could not see if one of the men gave the other something in return for something else, and did not see money pass between the two men …. Moreover, the detective saw only one exchange … , did not describe any furtive conduct on the part of the two men …, or, indeed, any other conduct that would give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was observing a drug transaction …. The detective’s observations supported only a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot” …, which is insufficient to justify the stop of the defendant’s car … . Consequently, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the crack cocaine must be granted. People v Loper 2014 NY Slip Opinion 01771, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

Court Properly Accepted Partial Verdict and Sent the Jury Back to Continue Deliberations on the Remaining Count

The Third Department determined the trial court properly accepted a partial verdict and sent the jury back to deliberate on the remaining count:

After the jury indicated that it had reached a verdict, the court started taking the verdict but, when the jury was polled on the larceny charge, one juror stated that she had made a mistake with her verdict. As a result, and over defendant’s objection, Supreme Court took the verdict on the two counts of criminal contempt and sent the jury back to further deliberate on the larceny charge. In our view, Supreme Court properly followed the procedure outlined inCPL 310.70 (1) (b), and there is no basis in the record to conclude that the court abused its broad discretion in accepting the partial verdict and then directing the jury to continue deliberations… . People v Phoenix, 2014 NY Slip Op 105148, 2nd Dept 3-13-14

 

,

Concise Example of a Weight of the Evidence Review

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction and dismissed the indictment after a weight of the evidence review. The court found too many inconsistencies in the evidence, especially with respect to the identification of the defendant as the attacker.  The decision is a concise example of the kinds of proof problems which are considered significant under a weight of the evidence analysis:

Here, there were troubling discrepancies in the evidence presented to the jury. Most significantly, the complainant testified that the club was sufficiently well-lit for him to see his assailant’s face while the encounter was ongoing. However, the detective who investigated the incident and interviewed the complainant testified, after having had his recollection refreshed with the DD-5 report he prepared in connection with the investigation, that the complainant told him he “did not have a clear recollection of the suspect because it was somewhat dark” in the Maribella. While the complainant denies he told the detective that, the People do not offer, nor can we perceive of, any reason why the detective would have been untruthful not only on the witness stand, but also in a contemporaneous internal report documenting the investigation.

Further clouding the accuracy of the complainant’s identification of defendant was the photograph he picked out of an array. We acknowledge that the complainant did not represent that the person in the photo he chose was his assailant, but rather that he looked like him. Nevertheless, there is a significant difference in the appearances, especially the complexions, of the people depicted in the two photographs, which calls into question the confidence the complainant had in recalling what his attacker looked like.  People v Diaz, 2014 NY Slip Op 01661, 1st Dept 3-13-14

 

Defendant Properly Sentenced As a Youthful Offender on One Indictment But Not on a Second Indictment

The Second Department determined the sentencing court properly sentenced defendant as a youthful offender under one indictment and properly declined to sentence defendant as a youthful offender under a second indictment:

The defendant contends that, because the sentencing court granted him youthful offender status with respect to Indictment No. 12-00529, it was required to do so with respect to Indictment No. 12-01380. The defendant was not convicted of two crimes set forth in separate counts of a single indictment, nor was he convicted of two crimes set forth in two separate indictments consolidated for trial purposes (see CPL 720.20[2]). Therefore, the sentencing court was authorized in its discretion to determine that the defendant was a youthful offender with respect to either or both convictions … . Accordingly, the sentencing court properly determined that it may find the defendant a youthful offender with respect to his conviction under Indictment No. 12-00529, but not with respect to his conviction under Indictment No. 12-01380.  People v Shaquille Mc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01633, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

, ,

Prosecutor’s Creating the Impression Non-Testifying Witness Identified Defendant as Shooter Violated Defendant’s Right to Confront the Witnesses Against Him

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that a new trial was required because the prosecutor created the impression a non-testifying witness [Drake] had identified the defendant as the shooter.  Although the error was not preserved by objection, the court addressed the issue in the interest of justice.  The court noted as well that the defense counsel’s objections to the prosecutor’s comments during summation (which reinforced the impression) were erroneously overruled:

Generally, during cross-examination, a party cannot introduce extrinsic evidence or call another witness to contradict a witness’s answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching such witness’s credibility … . As the defendant correctly contends, during the cross-examination of Lloyd, the prosecutor improperly gave the impression that Drake, who did not testify, implicated the defendant while the police questioned her … . Notably, the prosecutor acknowledged at the second trial that Drake had testified at the initial trial, and that Drake had not identified the defendant as having been present at the party.

The defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him prohibits the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he [or she] was unavailable to testify, and the defendant ha[s] had a prior opportunity for cross-examination” (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 53-54; see People v Pealer, 20 NY3d 447, 453, cert denied _____US_____, 134 S Ct 105). Here, the defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him was violated.  People v Lloyd, 2014 NY Slip Op 01631, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

, ,

Youthful Offender Privilege Explained/Privilege Not Waived By Denial of the Act Which Was the Subject of the Youthful Offender Adjudication in Subsequent Civil Suit

The Second Department determined the defendant’s son did not waive the privilege associated with his youthful offender status. Although defendant’s son had pled guilty to an assault based upon his throwing an egg, he denied throwing the egg in his deposition during the related civil proceedings.  That denial did not waive the privilege and the plaintiff could not gain access to the records of the criminal proceedings:

The youthful offender statute (CPL article 720) provides special measures for persons found to be youthful offenders, which ” emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths between the ages of 16 and 19 with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals'” … . Thus, “[a] youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense” (CPL 720.35[1]). Further, pursuant to CPL 720.35(2), all official records and papers concerning the adjudication are sealed. * * *

The privilege created by this statute attaches not only to the physical documents constituting the official record, but also to the information contained within those documents … . Thus, a person adjudicated a youthful offender may refuse to answer questions regarding the charges and police investigation, whether he or she pleaded guilty, and whether a youthful offender adjudication was made. However, the person must still answer questions regarding the facts underlying the adjudication … . * * *

Here, the defendant’s son did not waive the privilege afforded by the statute since he did not commence an action which places the conduct at issue … . The defendant did not assert counterclaims or cross claims in this action placing the conduct at issue …, and the defendant’s son did not testify as to the confidential contents of the records … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the testimony of the defendant’s son at his deposition denying that he threw the egg which allegedly struck the plaintiff’s daughter did not waive the protections of the statute … . Castiglione v James FQ, 2014 NY Slip Op 01571, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

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