You are here: / Criminal Law

Questioning of Witnesses by Trial Judge Did Not Deprive Defendant of a Fair Trial

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, determined that the participation of the judge in the questioning of witnesses did not rise to the level of depriving the defendant of a fair trial:

The guarantee of a fair trial does not “inhibit a Trial Judge from assuming an active role in the resolution of the truth” … . Thus, a trial judge is permitted “to question witnesses to clarify testimony and to facilitate the progress of the trial,” and, if necessary, to develop factual information … . However, a judge may not “take [] on either the function or appearance of an advocate at trial” … .

The “substance and not the number of questions asked is the important consideration” … . Even if a trial judge makes intrusive remarks that would better have been left unsaid, or questions witnesses extensively, the defendant is not thereby deprived of a fair trial so long as the jury is “not prevented from arriving at an impartial judgment on the merits” … . Notably, although the exercise of a trial court’s power to question witnesses should be exercised “sparingly” …, “in the case of expert testimony, the court’s intervention is often necessary to assist the jurors in comprehending matters of specialized knowledge” … , and the trial judge is afforded greater leeway.

The record before us establishes that the trial court did not take on the function and appearance of an advocate. * * *

Furthermore, although it is true that a “claim that the intrusion of the Trial Judge deprived [the defendant] of his constitutional right to a fair trial is not subject to harmless error analysis” …, the strength or weakness of the evidence may be considered as a factor in determining whether the defendant received a fair trial … .  People v Adams, 2014 NY Slip Op 02349, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

Purchaser of a Firearm is an Accomplice of the Seller for Corroboration Purposes

The Third Department determined the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that a witness against the defendant (Lewandowski) was an accomplice as a matter of law (requiring corroboration of his testimony) was reversible error. Lewandowski bought a firearm from the defendant and therefore was an accomplice of the seller for corroboration purposes:

“A defendant may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense” (CPL 60.22 [1]). Pursuant to CPL 60.22, an accomplice is a person who “may reasonably be considered to have participated in . . . [t]he offense charged; or . . . [a]n offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged” (CPL 60.22 [2] [emphasis added]). Notably, the definition of an accomplice for the purpose of the corroboration rule differs significantly from the definition of an accomplice for purposes of accomplice criminal liability (…compare CPL 60.22 with Penal Law § 20.00). CPL 60.22 broadens the definition of an accomplice “‘in order to provide a more equitable, operable and consistent standard for the courts in determining when the requirement of corroboration is applicable'”… . Thus, to be an accomplice for corroboration purposes, the witness “must somehow be criminally implicated and potentially subject to prosecution for the conduct or factual transaction related to the crimes for which the defendant is on trial” … .

Here, the evidence established that Lewandowski did not have a license to possess the handgun he bought from defendant. Thus, although Lewandowski could not be subject to prosecution for criminal sale of a firearm, he was potentially subject to prosecution for – and was, in fact, charged with – criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree since he unlawfully possessed the weapon as soon as he made the purchase (see Penal Law §§ 265.01 [1]; 265.20 [a] [3]). Just as the purchaser in a drug sale is, as a matter of law, an accomplice of the seller for corroboration purposes …, here Lewandowski was an accomplice as a matter of law with respect to defendant’s weapon sale and possession charges since he could have been (and was) charged with a crime “based upon some of the same facts or conduct” upon which the charges against defendant were based (CPL 60.22 [2] [b]…). County Court was therefore required to instruct the jury that Lewandowski was an accomplice as a matter of law as to those charges, and that defendant could not be convicted on Lewandowski’s testimony absent corroborative evidence… . People v Medeiros, 105941, 3rd Dept 4-3-13

 

Trial Court’s Decision to Conduct Trial in Defendant’s Absence Without Consideration of the Factors Mandated for Consideration by the Court of Appeals Required Reversal

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not consider the appropriate factors before continuing with the trial without the defendant’s presence:

“A defendant’s right to be present in the courtroom during his or her trial is one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Federal and New York Constitutions, and by statute” … . Even where, as here, “a defendant has waived the right to be present at trial by not appearing after being apprised of the right and the consequences of nonappearance, trial in absentia is not thereby automatically authorized”… . Rather, it must also appear from the record that the trial court considered “all appropriate factors” before proceeding in defendant’s absence, “including the possibility that defendant could be located within a reasonable period of time, the difficulty of rescheduling [the] trial and the chance that evidence will be lost or witnesses will disappear” … . As the Court of Appeals has instructed, “[i]n most cases the simple expedient of adjournment pending execution of a bench warrant could provide an alternative to trial in absentia unless, of course, the prosecution can demonstrate that such a course of action would be totally futile” … .

Here, the record fails to demonstrate that Supreme Court considered any of the appropriate factors. When defendant failed to appear on the morning that trial was scheduled to commence, defense counsel represented to the court that he had no information as to defendant’s whereabouts and requested an adjournment. Supreme Court declined to grant an adjournment, issued a bench warrant for defendant’s arrest and pronounced its decision to proceed immediately to trial. People v June, 105292, 3rd Dept 4-3-14 

 

, ,

Appeals Not Pursued for a Decade or More Properly Dismissed

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined, with respect to three of four defendants, dismissal of the appeals was appropriate. The appeals were not pursued for more than a decade, in one case more than two decades, after the filing of the notices of appeal, and the excuses for inaction were found insufficient.  With respect to the fourth defendant, counsel had never reviewed the record. Therefore, defendant’s right to appellate counsel had not been honored. The matter was sent back for the appointment of appellate counsel and submissions, after which the motion to dismiss the appeal could be properly considered.  People v Perez, 2014 NY Slip Op 02326, CtApp 4-3-13

 

Two Dissenting Justices Found Defendant’s Sentence Excessive Under the Facts

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, found that the defendant’s application for resentencing under the Drug Reform Act was properly denied.  The decision is notable for the dissents, which forcefully argued defendant’s sentence was harsh and excessive in light of all the facts. People v Lovett, 2014 NY Slip Op 02329, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

,

Defense Counsel Did Not Provide Effective Assistance

The First Department determined the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel.  Counsel did not object to inadmissible hearsay which corroborated the complainant’s testimony, counsel did not subpoena medical records or call a medical expert despite proof at the first trial the evidence of complainant’s injury was unsupported, and counsel did not impeach the complainant by confronting her with her prior inconsistent statements:

in a case that depended heavily on the credibility of the complainant, counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony indicating that several unnamed out-of-court declarants supported the complainant’s version of the incident. These bystander statements were not admissible under any theory, and we reject the People’s arguments to the contrary. These declarations did not qualify as excited utterances, and, under the circumstances of the case, they were not admissible as background information to complete the narrative and explain police actions. At a prior trial, at which defendant was represented by different counsel, and which ended in a hung jury, the content of these declarations was not placed in evidence.

We are unable to discern any strategic basis for counsel’s failure to object to this highly prejudicial hearsay evidence. Any benefit that defendant may have gained when his counsel attempted to suggest that a police witness fabricated the existence of the bystander declarations was clearly outweighed by the prejudicial effect of having the jury hear the declarations in the first place. Defendant had nothing to lose, and much to gain, by keeping the declarations completely out of the case. Furthermore, the trial record reveals that counsel was unaware, and apparently surprised, that the content of these declarations was not in evidence at the first trial. This tends to suggest that counsel’s failure to object had nothing to do with strategy. People v Ugweches, 2014 NY Slip Op 02333, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

,

Failure to Prove Shared Intent (Accessorial Liability) Required Dismissal of Robbery Counts Under a Weight of the Evidence Analysis

The Second Department, after a weight of the evidence review, determined there was insufficient proof defendant shared the intent to commit the robbery and dismissed the relevant counts of the indictment:

Here, the defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted robbery in the second degree under a theory of accessorial liability. “To sustain a conviction based upon accessorial liability, the evidence . . . must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted with the mental culpability necessary to commit the crime charged and that, in furtherance thereof, he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal to commit such crime'” (…see Penal Law § 20.00…).Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15), we determine, in the first instance, that acquittal of the charges of attempted robbery in the second degree would not have been unreasonable based upon the evidence presented and, moreover, that the jury failed to accord the evidence the weight it should have been accorded … . The evidence presented at trial did not establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant shared the intent to commit robbery, or that he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided the principal in committing the offense of attempted robbery in the second degree. Accordingly, the convictions of attempted robbery in the second degree and the sentences imposed thereon must be vacated, and those counts of the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Marchena, 2014 NY Slip Op 02312, 2nd Dept 4-2-14

 

Mischaracterization of a Jury Note Required Reversal

The Second Department determined that the trial court’s mischaracterization of a jury note required reversal:

The Supreme Court mischaracterized the contents of the note to counsel as merely requesting a readback of the elements of the charged offenses rather than as indicating the jury’s apparent erroneous impression that proof of a single element of each crime was sufficient to render a guilty verdict … . In thus mischaracterizing the note, the Supreme Court did not afford defense counsel the opportunity to participate in the formulation of the court’s response to the jury’s confusion. “Since defense counsel was not afforded the opportunity to provide suggestions, [s]he was prevented from participating meaningfully at this critical stage of the proceedings” … . “In the absence of record proof that the trial court complied with its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30, a mode of proceedings error occurred requiring reversal” (People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852, 853), despite defense counsel’s failure to object to the court’s treatment of the jury note … . Furthermore, meaningful notice of the contents of a jury note must take place on the record … . Accordingly, contrary to the People’s contention, a reconstruction hearing to determine whether counsel was provided with the note off the record would be neither appropriate nor helpful … . People v Giraldo, 2014 NY Slip Op 02309, 2nd Dept 4-2-14

 

,

Downward Departure Warranted in SORA Proceeding Where Victim’s Lack of Consent Was Solely By Virtue of Age

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the fact that the victim’s lack of consent to sexual intercourse was due solely to the inability to consent by virtue of age warranted a downward departure in a SORA proceeding. The court noted that, although the victim became pregnant, there was no evidence the defendant intended to make the victim pregnant, and the defendant pays child support and visits the child often:

…[T]he SORA Guidelines provide that “[a] court may choose to downwardly depart from the risk assessment in an appropriate case and in those instances where (i) the victim’s lack of consent is due only to inability to consent by virtue of age and (ii) scoring 25 points [for sexual contact with the victim, risk factor 2] results in an over-assessment of the offender’s risk to public safety'” … . The evidence in this case proves the existence of the facts supporting this ground for departure.It is true, as our dissenting colleague points out, that there was an 11-year difference in age between the defendant and the victim, and that the victim became pregnant as a result of the defendant’s crime. We share our colleague’s concern about these facts and about the significance of the age differential … . Nevertheless, the purposes of the SORA Guidelines are to assess the risk that a sex offender will reoffend and the offender’s threat to public safety (see Correction Law § 168-l[5]). There is no evidence here that the defendant committed his crime with the intention that the victim become pregnant, so the fact that a pregnancy did result is irrelevant to the SORA risk level determination. Moreover, the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the defendant pays child support to the victim. While, as our dissenting colleague points out, payment of child support is a legal obligation, it was undisputed at the hearing that the defendant not only pays child support, but that he also regularly travels a significant distance to visit the child. People v Marsh, 2014 NY Slip Op 02274, 2nd Dept 4-2-14

 

,

Brutality of Offense Warranted an Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding

The Second Department determined the brutality involved in the offense warranted an upward departure:

…[I]n light of the extreme brutality and violence of the defendant’s conduct in his commission of the underlying crimes, which included holding the victim hostage in her home over the course of approximately 13 hours, repeatedly threatening to stab her with a knife and burn her to death with gasoline, raping her twice, locking her in a closet, choking and punching her, and engaging in a standoff with the police, the County Court properly determined that there were aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary … . Upon making such a determination, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s application for an upward departure from a level two to a level three sex offender … . People v Soevyn, 2014 NY Slip Op 02275, 2nd Dept 4-2-14

 

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