You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Police Did Not Have Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity, Defendant Had Right to Ignore Police Command to Stop

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, the First Department reversed the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress.  After a police officer stopped a vehicle (a Lexus), the officer saw the defendant approach the vehicle on foot, receive a bag from the driver, and walk away.  The defendant was then ordered to stop:

After pulling the driver of the Lexus over for a traffic infraction, Detective Mongelli observed his nervous demeanor, and learned that his license had been revoked. The detective then saw defendant arrive at the Lexus, receive a black bag from the driver, and walk away. These observations provided, at most, a founded suspicion of criminal activity. … In response to this founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, Detective Mongelli was permitted to conduct a common-law inquiry. But the police actions here went beyond a level two intrusion and constituted a level three stop and detention.  * * * Furthermore, the detective’s command to “turn the bag over” constituted at least a level three intrusion, requiring reasonable suspicion. * * *

It is well established that a citizen has a right not to respond to law enforcement inquiries and to walk away from the police …[.] [T]he Court of Appeals reaffirmed this principle and described an individual’s “right to be let alone” as the distinguishing factor between the level of intrusion permissible under the common-law right to inquire and the right to make a forcible stop. The Court reasoned that “[i]f merely walking away from the police were sufficient to raise the level of suspicion to reasonable suspicion . . . the common-law right of inquiry would be tantamount to the right to conduct a forcible stop and the suspect would be effectively seized whenever only a common-law right of inquiry was justified” … . The Court concluded that to elevate a level two inquiry to a level three stop, the police must obtain additional information or make additional observations of suspicious behavior sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion … . Because no such additional information or observations existed here, the police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure that occurred. People v Major, 2014 NY Slip Op 00197, 1st Dept 1-14-14

 

Waiver of Indictment and Guilty Plea Invalid—Superior Court Information Charged a Greater Offense than that Charged in the Original Misdemeanor Information

The Third Department determined defendant’s conviction must be reversed because the superior court information to which defendant pled guilty charged a greater offense (conspiracy fourth degree) than was charged in the misdemeanor complaint (criminal solicitation fourth degree).  In addition, because the defendant’s guilty plea to another offense (criminal sexual act first degree) was induced by the court’s promise of a lesser sentence to run concurrently with the overturned conspiracy sentence, the sexual act plea must be vacated.  With respect to the invalid superior court information, the court wrote:

In New York, felony charges must be prosecuted by indictment, unless a defendant “held for the action of a grand jury upon a charge for such an offense, other than one punishable by death or life imprisonment, with the consent of the district attorney, . . . waive[s] indictment by a grand jury and consent[s] to be prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney” (NY Const, art I, § 6; see CPL 195.10 [1]).  Where an indictment waiver has been secured, however, the People may not charge in a superior court information a “‘greater offense[], which [has] additional aggravating elements'” … .  This is precisely what occurred here.  The misdemeanor complaint charged defendant with criminal solicitation in the fourth degree and the superior court information impermissibly charged the greater offense of conspiracy in the fourth degree.  Inasmuch as the improper inclusion of a greater offense is a jurisdictional infirmity …, notwithstanding defendant’s appeal waiver and plea, we must reverse his conviction of conspiracy in the fourth degree and dismiss the superior court information… . People v Price, 2014 NY Slip Op 00140 [113 AD3d 883] 3rd Dept 1-9-14

 

Post-Readiness Delay Ran Out Speedy Trial Clock

The Third Department determined defendant’s indictment must be dismissed because of the People’s post-readiness delay.  There were seven days left on the speedy trial clock when the People obtained a superseding indictment. The People requested an adjournment.  The record did not demonstrate the length of the requested adjournment, so the People were charged with the actual length of the adjournment, which was more than seven days:

…[W]here the People have requested an adjournment, “it is the People’s burden to ensure, in the first instance, that the record of the proceedings at which the adjournment was actually granted is sufficiently clear to enable the court considering the subsequent CPL 30.30 motion to make an informed decision as to whether the People should be charged” … .  The People failed to discharge that burden here.  The calendar call at which the adjournment was granted was not transcribed and, although the People are only chargeable with the length of the adjournment actually requested … – as opposed to the length of the adjournment ultimately granted – the record does not establish the length of the adjournment requested by the People. Accordingly, we have no choice but to charge the People with the entire 21 days occasioned by the adjournment, which brings them beyond the seven days remaining on the speedy trial clock… . People v Miller, 104500, 3rd Dept 1-9-14

 

,

No Probable Cause to Search Car Interior After Occupants Were Out of the Car and Patted Down

The Second Department determined the police officer who stopped the car in which defendant was a passenger did not have probable cause to search the interior of the car after the occupants were out of the car and had been patted down.  The court explained the relevant law:

” [A] police officer acting on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and on an articulable basis to fear for his [or her] own safety may intrude upon the person or personal effects of the suspect only to the extent that is actually necessary to protect himself [or herself] from harm'” … . Therefore, “absent probable cause, it is unlawful for a police officer to invade the interior of a stopped vehicle once the suspects have been removed and patted down without incident, as any immediate threat to the officers’ safety has consequently been eliminated” … . A “narrow exception” to this rule exists in circumstances where:

” following a lawful stop, facts revealed during a proper inquiry or other information gathered during the course of the encounter lead to the conclusion that a weapon located within the vehicle presents an actual and specific danger to the officer’s safety sufficient to justify further intrusion, notwithstanding the suspect’s inability to gain immediate access to that weapon'”… . People v Baksh, 2014 NY Slip Op 00112, 2nd Dept 1-8-14

 

Defense Counsel Should Have Been Present During Exchange Between Judge and Juror Which Resulted in Disqualification of Juror/Judge Should Have Disclosed Reason for Disqualification

The Second Department determined defense counsel’s absence from an exchange between the judge and a juror, which led to the disqualification of the juror, required reversal:

The juror reported that a third party had told him that the defendant had an “aggressive demeanor,” was a “little wild,” was “somebody you don’t mess around with,” and was someone he “should avoid.” The trial court, in discharging the juror, merely told defense counsel that this juror had lied to the court and, thus, was grossly unqualified to continue serving pursuant to CPL 270.35.

“[A]n inquiry to determine the existence and extent of prejudice affecting the gross disqualification of a sworn juror . . . is inextricably related to defendant’s entitlement to a fair hearing … . Therefore, the unique, indispensable presence of at least the single-minded counsel for the accused’ … is minimally necessary to safeguard that fundamental fairness to defendant” … .

Here, the absence of defense counsel from the in camera interview, coupled with the court’s failure to disclose what the juror said, deprived the defense of the opportunity to inquire as to whether the juror made similar prejudicial statements to any other jurors… . People v Otigho, 2014 NY Slip Op 00128, 2nd Dept 1-8-14

 

,

Showup Identification of the Hand-Cuffed Defendant Made in the Police Station Parking Lot 90 Minutes After the Crime Should Have Been Suppressed

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and sent the matter back for a Wade hearing to determine whether the eyewitness had an independent basis for his in-court identification of the defendant.  The show-up identification made by the eyewitness was deemed invalid and should have been suppressed:

…[D]efendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress showup identification testimony with respect to him.  We agree. “Showup identifications are disfavored, since they are suggestive by their very nature” …. .  Here, the showup identification procedure was conducted in the parking lot of a police station, approximately 90 minutes after the occurrence of the crime, while defendant was handcuffed and while uniformed police officers and ambulance personnel were in the parking lot.  The totality of the circumstances of this showup identification procedure presses judicial tolerance beyond its limits …, and we conclude under the facts and circumstances of this case that the showup identification procedure was infirm… .  People v Burnice, 1343, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

,

Twenty-Two-Year-Old Conviction Reversed Because of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed defendant’s 1992 conviction.  The conviction had already been upheld on appeal.  But, in 2012, a writ of coram nobis was brought arguing defendant did not receive a fair trial because of the ineffectiveness of his counsel.  The writ was granted and, on appeal, the court determined defendant was entitled to a new trial.  Defense counsel was deemed ineffective (1) for failure to object to the elicitation of testimony about a threat which had been precluded by the trial judge, and (2) for using a flawed alibi defense (referring to the wrong days of the week) which gave the jury the impression the alibi witnesses were testifying falsely:

We conclude that “defendant has demonstrated the absence of any strategic or other legitimate explanation for his attorney’s” failure to object to the introduction of this prejudicial and previously precluded testimony … .  Moreover, after defense counsel failed to object to the admission of that precluded testimony, the prosecutor continued to use that testimony to full advantage, arguing on summation that the threat to the prosecution witness “puts the [d]efendant [at the crime scene] just as easily as any person you saw in there” … .  Defense counsel’s error in failing to object to the testimony of the prosecution witness “simply cannot be construed as a misguided though reasonably plausible strategy decision” …, and “ ‘is sufficiently serious to have deprived defendant of a fair trial’… . * * *

Presenting an alibi defense for the wrong date or time has been found, by itself, to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel … .  We conclude that presenting an alibi defense for the wrong day of the week, as occurred here, similarly constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel inasmuch as offering patently erroneous alibi testimony cannot be construed as a plausible strategy… . People v Jarvis, 1009, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

Banging On Door of Closed Restaurant While Wearing a Mask and Carrying a BB Gun Was Sufficient to Support Conviction for Attempted Robbery

Over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department affirmed defendant’s conviction for attempted robbery.  Defendant, wearing a mask and armed with a BB gun, banged on the back door of a restaurant, which was closed. One of the restaurant employees called 911.  On appeal the defendant argued that the proof was not sufficient to demonstrate an intent to forcibly steal property and therefore could not support an attempted robbery conviction:

Although defendant’s mere entry into a store with a gun does not “unequivocally establish that he intended to commit a robbery” …, the evidence also established that none of the Wendy’s employees knew defendant; the restaurant was not open to the public when defendant sought entry; defendant and his accomplice were armed with BB guns that appeared to be firearms; defendant and his accomplice wore masks and gloves; and defendant had a backpack into which stolen property could be put.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must …, we conclude that there is a “ ‘valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could lead a rational person’ ” to the conclusion reached by the trial court, i.e., that defendant was trying to gain entry into the restaurant with the intent to steal property forcibly from someone inside … . Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial …, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence… . People v Lamont, 1090, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

Determination Whether Defendant Is a Youthful Offender Is Mandatory for Every Eligible Youth

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined the sentencing court did not make a finding whether the defendant was a youthful offender, as it was required to do.  The matter was sent back for the determination:

“Upon conviction of an eligible youth, the court must order a [presentence] investigation of the defendant.  After receipt of a written report of the investigation and at the time of pronouncing sentence the court must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender” (CPL 720.20 [1]).  The Court of Appeals has concluded that, by the use of the word “must,” the legislature has made “a policy choice that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” … .  “[W]e cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . [issue] as a denial thereof” … .  We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to make and state for the record “a determination of whether defendant is a youthful offender” … . People v Koons, 1077, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

,

Hearsay Statements Exonerating Defendant Properly Excluded as Not Meeting the Reliability Requirement for a “Statement Against Penal Interest”

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined the accomplice’s hearsay statements exonerating the defendant were properly excluded from evidence because they did not meet the “reliability” requirement for “statements against penal interest:”

We … note that the Court of Appeals has recently reiterated that there are four components to the declaration against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule: “(1) the declarant must be unavailable to testify by reason of death, absence from the jurisdiction or refusal to testify on constitutional grounds; (2) the declarant must be aware at the time the statement is made that it is contrary to penal interest; (3) the declarant must have competent knowledge of the underlying facts; and (4) there must be sufficient proof independent of the utterance to assure its reliability” ….  Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence sets forth a fifth component, i.e., that the declarant “had no probable motive to misrepresent the facts” (Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-403 [Farrell 11th Ed 2008]).  To the extent that component should be part of our calculus here, we conclude that it weights our determination even more heavily in the People’s favor. People v McArthur, 1249, 4th Dept 1-3-14

 

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