You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Applied In Civil Suit Alleging Sexual Abuse Where Defendant Pled Guilty to Offenses Described in the Civil Suit

The Second Department determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied where the issues raised in a civil suit, based upon allegations of sexual abuse to which the defendant pled guilty, were identical to the offenses described in the plea transcript. The doctrine, however, did not apply to the civil allegation of rape because the defendant did not plead guilty to rape:

“Where a criminal conviction is based upon facts identical to those in issue in a related civil action, the plaintiff in the civil action can successfully invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bar the convicted defendant from litigating the issue of his liability” … . The doctrine applies whether the conviction resulted from a plea or a trial … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” … . “The party against whom preclusion is sought bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … . Morrow v Gallagher, 2014 NY Slip Op 00489, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

, ,

What To Do If the District Attorney Does Not Wish to Prosecute But the Judge Does

The Third Department determined a trial judge exceeded his powers when he ordered the prosecutor to produce witnesses at a suppression hearing.  The prosecutor did not wish to proceed with the case. The Third Department determined that the prosecutor could not be ordered to produce witnesses at the suppression hearing (the prosecutor’s tactic for dismissing the case) because the CPL did not require the prosecution to present such witnesses. The Third Department went on to suggest that, in this situation, a motion for “dismissal in the interest of justice” might be used, or the prosecutor could simply not present any inculpatory proof at trial:

A district attorney has “unfettered discretion to determine whether to prosecute a particular suspect” … .  Once prosecution of the case is pursued and pending, the district attorney remains “presumptively the best judge of whether a pending prosecution should be terminated” …; nonetheless, at such point dismissal cannot properly be done unilaterally on the sole whim of the district attorney … .  * * *  Unless the district attorney has engaged in egregious misconduct violative of the public interest, the limitation generally will not create difficulty in obtaining swift dismissal where a defendant also desires dismissal, since various procedures are available for disposing of a pending criminal case.

For example, a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice can be made (see CPL 170.40; see also CPL 210.40).  Such motion can be initiated by a defendant, a district attorney, or even by the court before which the case is pending * * *. Although there are statutory criteria that must also be addressed as part of a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice (see CPL 170.40 [1] [a]-[j]), the criteria include a catchall (see CPL 170.40 [1] [j]), and there is flexibility in the manner in which the criteria are weighed and applied … .  * * *

Another, but more time consuming, option is similar to the one ostensibly embarked upon by petitioner.   Consistent with the CPL, a district attorney can stipulate at a suppression hearing to the granting of a defendant’s motion (see CPL 710.60 [2] [b]).   Further, the failure at an eventual trial to produce any inculpatory proof would result in dismissal and, since reprosecution would then be precluded (see e.g. CPL 40.20, 40.30), the primary purpose for abolishing nolle prosequi would not be implicated … . Matter of Soares v Carter…, 517191, 3rd Dept 1-23-14

 

,

Counsel’s Expressed Objections to His Client’s Motion to Withdraw His Guilty Plea Required the Assignment of New Counsel

The Second Department determined defendant should have been assigned a different attorney after his attorney expressed objections to the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea:

Assigned counsel expressed his opinion that the defendant should “maintain his plea” and informed the court that he didn’t “feel that [he] could represent [the defendant] at any further proceedings.” The defendant’s right to counsel was adversely affected when his attorney took a position adverse to the defendant’s with respect to that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to withdraw his plea of guilty to attempted use of a child in a sexual performance … . The County Court should have assigned a different attorney to represent the defendant before it determined that branch of the defendant’s motion… . People v Duart, 2014 NY Slip Op 00373, 2nd Dept 1-22-14

 

,

Attorney Conflict Waiver Criteria Discussed/Whether Molineux Analysis Should Be Applied to “Prior Bad Thoughts” in Journal Entries Discussed

In two concurring opinions, one by Judge Lippman and the other by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals determined defendant did not raise an error warranting reversal.

The defendant contended (1) his attorney had personal interests which conflicted with her professional obligations to him, and (2) journal entries which were unrelated to the murder with which defendant was charged should not have been admitted in evidence.

One of defendant’s attorneys was under indictment by the same district attorney’s office for allegedly smuggling drugs to a client in jail. The defendant waived the conflict. The two judges disagreed about what such a conflict waiver should include and agreed the defendant’s conflict waiver was inadequate, but determined reversal was not required because there was an insufficient showing the conflict operated on the defense.

The journal entries were essentially “bad thoughts” about women other than the victim.  Judge Lippman determined that the “prior bad thoughts” should have been analyzed under the Molineux criteria for the admission of evidence of prior crimes and bad acts.  Judge Abdus-Salaam determined that Molineux should not be extended to such “prior bad thoughts,” which should simply be scrutinized under relevancy criteria. Both judges determined the erroneous admission of the “bad thoughts” evidence was harmless error.  People v Cortez, 225, CtApp 1-21-14

 

, , ,

Constitutionality of Statute Allowing Defective Sentence to Be Remedied by a Sentence Without Post Release Supervision (CPL 70.85) Is an Open Issue Which Should Be Decided by the Sentencing Court in the First Instance/Crawford Motion Relieving Counsel of Perfecting an Appeal Because of the Absence of Non-Frivolous Issues Should Not Have Been Granted

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division should not have granted counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing the defendant on appeal on the ground the appeal would be “wholly frivolous.”  There is an issue whether the statute which allows resentencing the defendant to a term of imprisonment without post release supervision after post release supervision had been (illegally) administratively imposed is constitutional:

Defendant timely appealed the resentence and was assigned counsel, who reviewed the file and informed defendant of our decision in People v Boyd (12 NY3d 390 [2009]), where this court upheld defendant Boyd's sentence under Penal Law § 70.85, but left open the constitutionality of that statute, stating that it should be decided by the sentencing court in the first instance.  Despite this open issue, counsel filed a motion pursuant to People v Crawford … arguing that there were no non-frivolous issues to be raised on defendant's behalf and asking to be relieved as counsel.  Defendant filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that her sentence was illegal, and that she was denied effective assistance of counsel.  The Appellate Division granted counsel's motion and affirmed the resentence, without addressing defendant's pro se contentions (96 AD3d 1515 [2012]).  * * *

Defendant argues that her appeal was not wholly frivolous because she had two claims: (1) the claim that Penal Law § 70.85 is unconstitutional as applied to her case, and (2) that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel at every level.  We agree with defendant that the Appellate Division erred in granting the Crawford motion.  Without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits, at the time defendant's appellate counsel filed his Crawford motion, the claims to that court were not wholly frivolous and, therefore, the court should have denied appellate counsel's motion.  As a result, a reversal and remittal for a de novo appeal is warranted… . People v Beaty, 84, CtApp 1-16-14

 

Judge’s Refusal to Grant a One-Day Adjournment to Allow Defendant to Present a Witness (After the Judge Granted the People’s Request for a Missing-Witness Jury Instruction) Was Reversible Error

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the judge refused to grant defendant a one-day adjournment to bring in a witness after granting the People’s request for a missing-witness jury instruction:

Having granted the People’s request for the [missing witness] instruction, the court should have granted defendant a short adjournment. A missing witness issue “must be raised as soon as practicable so that the court can appropriately exercise its discretion and the parties can tailor their trial strategy”… . Here, the moving party raised the issue after defendant’s testimony, when the issue became apparent. The court should have then accorded the nonmoving party the opportunity to avoid the missing witness charge by calling the witness. Although defendant was willing to call the witness, the court effectively rendered the witness unavailable, thus negating the availability requirement for a missing witness charge.

The court apparently denied the adjournment on the ground that defendant should have anticipated the missing witness issue. However, an adjournment to the next day would have been reasonable under the circumstances. People v Manzi, 2014 NY Slip Op 00280, 1st Dept 1-16-14

 

,

Level Three Forcible Stop Not Justified, Convictions Reversed—Prior Arrest of One of the Defendants and the Fact that Both Defendants Were Running While Looking Back Over their Shoulders Was Not Enough to Justify the Forcible Stop

In a two separate full-fledged opinions by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over dissents, the First Department reversed defendants’ convictions, finding that their motions to suppress should have been granted.  Defendants were stopped after the police observed them running at 4:40 am.  Both men, Thomas and Brown, were looking back over their shoulders as they ran.  Brown (but not Thomas) was known to the police as someone who “engaged in fraudulent accosting in that area…”. The First Department determined the stop was not justified for either defendant:

A level three forcible stop is constitutional only if the police have a “reasonable suspicion that a particular person was involved in a felony or misdemeanor” … . In determining whether the police officers had the requisite reasonable suspicion, only the information known to the officers prior to the forcible stop is relevant … .

The officers’ knowledge of defendant Brown’s prior criminality in the same neighborhood was not sufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion justifying a level three intrusion as to Brown; perforce, knowledge of Brown’s prior criminality was insufficient to justify a level three intrusion as to [Thomas], who was merely in Brown’s company and was not even known by the officers to have a criminal record. The police sergeant only knew [Thomas] by face, and the officer did not know [Thomas] personally and had never arrested him. … The motion court, in denying [Thomas’] motion to suppress, appears to have endorsed a theory of “guilt by association,” which must vigorously be rejected.

 “[A] stop based on no more than that a suspect has previously been arrested . . . is premature and unlawful and cannot be justified by subsequently acquired information resulting from the stop”… . * * *

The fact that the officers observed [Thomas] and Brown running does not elevate the level of suspicion. Flight, accompanied by equivocal circumstances, does not supply the requisite reasonable suspicion … . The police did not observe conduct indicative of criminality, nor did they even possess information that a crime had occurred in the area. People v Thomas, 2014 NY Slip Op 00291, 1st Dept 1-16-14; same result in People v Brown, 2014 NY Slip Op 00292, 1st Dept 1-16-14

 

, ,

Religious Brochure Urging Confession (Given to Defendant by a Deputy Sheriff) Required Trial Court to Make Sure Defendant Understood His Right to Refrain from Testifying at Trial—Trial Court’s Colloquy with Defendant Deemed Sufficient

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters affirming defendant’s conviction, the Third Department determined the trial judge had made an adequate inquiry to ensure that defendant understood his right to refrain from testifying at trial.  The inquiry was deemed necessary in this case because a deputy sheriff had given the defendant a religious brochure which stated that confession was the only way to avoid an “eternity in a prison called hell:”

… [A] criminal defendant has the right to testify in his or her own defense guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions … .  This fundamental “right to testify is ‘personal’ and . . . can be waived only by the defendant,” and any such waiver must be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made … .  To be sure, the “trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant’s failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his [or her] right” … .  However, “in exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances, judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant may be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected” … .

We believe that such colloquy was critically necessary here.  The privilege against self-incrimination – and, by extension, the decision whether to waive that privilege and testify – “is not concerned ‘with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion'” … .  But here the deputy’s actions in foisting the religious tract upon defendant constituted an effort by law enforcement to “interfere[] with the free and unhampered decision of [defendant] to testify” … .  Moreover, looking at “factors beyond the government’s control to determine whether [defendant’s] decision not to testify resulted from the government’s conduct,” defendant allegedly knew “chapter and verse” the biblical quotations in the tract, making defense counsel concerned that he was peculiarly susceptible to the exhortation made… . People v Robles, 105103, 3rd Dept 1-16-14

 

,

Defendant Could Properly Subpoena Documents Which May Support a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment in the Interest of Justice/There Was Evidence of a Policy Not to Prosecute Native Americans for Tax Law Violations Relating to Cigarettes

In a case alleging (criminal) cigarette-related tax law violations, the Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of the state police’s and the tax department’s motions to quash subpoenas concerning a forbearance enforcement policy.  The defendant, who is Native American, alleged the tax department and the state police made a policy-decision not to prosecute Native Americans for tax law violations related to cigarettes manufactured by Native Americans.  The subpoenas were deemed relevant to a possible “interest of justice” dismissal of the indictment:

To be sure, the policy of the Department and the issues surrounding the Division’s actual enforcement of the Tax Law with respect to Native American manufactured cigarettes may very well be found insufficient to justify dismissal of the indictment in the interest of justice.  Yet, we simply cannot say that the testimony sought on those issues “is utterly irrelevant” to the question of whether defendant’s prosecution here would be unjust … .   Accordingly, Supreme Court properly denied the motions to quash the subpoenas. People v Laughing, NYS Dept of Taxation and Finance, 516567, 3rd Dept 1-16-14

 

,

Reversible Error to Allow Prosecutor to Question Defendant About His Post-Arrest Silence

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the prosecutor questioned him about his post-arrest silence:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred when it permitted the prosecutor to question the defendant about his post-arrest silence. Generally, a defendant’s post-arrest silence cannot be used for impeachment purposes … . Further, ” an individual’s pretrial failure to speak when confronted by law enforcement officials is of extremely limited probative worth’ while the risk of prejudice is substantial'” … .

Here, over defense counsel’s objection, the prosecutor was permitted to impeach the defendant’s testimony with his failure to offer an exculpatory version of the events to the police. Although the defendant initially responded to certain questions asked by the police, he then invoked his right to remain silent and offered no information “narrat[ing] the essential facts of his involvement in the crime” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in allowing the prosecutor to pursue this line of inquiry… . People v Theodore, 2014 Slip Op 00246, 2nd Dept 1-15-14

 

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