You are here: / Criminal Law
,

“Evidentiary Fact” Resolved In Favor of Defendant by a Jury In the First Trial May Not Be Contradicted by Evidence Presented in the Second Trial

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel prohibited the introduction of evidence a firearm was displayed in the course of a robbery.  In the first trial, the defendant was acquitted of First Degree Robbery (which requires display of a firearm) and convicted of Second Degree Robbery (display of a weapon is not an element of Second Degree Robbery). The conviction was reversed on appeal.  In the second trial (for Second Degree Robbery only), the People presented evidence a weapon was displayed.  The court found the People were collaterally estopped from presenting evidence of the display of a weapon in the second trial:

This case is controlled by our holding in People v Acevedo (69 NY2d 478, 480 [1987]) that “the doctrine of collateral estoppel can be applied to issues of ‘evidentiary’ fact.”  As we explained in Acevedo, in the analysis of collateral estoppel issues, facts essential to the second judgment are considered “ultimate” facts; other facts are only “evidentiary” (id. at 480 n 1).  Under Acevedo, when an issue of evidentiary fact has been resolved in a defendant’s favor by a jury, the People may not, at a later trial, present evidence that contradicts the first jury’s finding.  People v O’Toole, 233, CtApp 12-10-13

 

Possession of a Controlled Substance May Be Proved Circumstantially/Permissible Inference that Possessors Know What They Possess

The Court of Appeals determined the accusatory instrument charging attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance was sufficient.  The police officer observed defendant drop a glass pipe which contained cocaine “residue.” The court noted that “possession of a controlled substance ‘may be proven circumstantially,’ and ‘possession suffices to permit the inference that possessors know what they possess.’ ”  People v Jennings, 256, CtApp 12-10-13

 

 

“Strangulation” Conviction Affirmed

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, the Third Department affirmed defendant’s conviction for strangulation in the second degree (as well as assault in the third degree).  The victim of domestic abuse alleged the defendant choked her with one hand and shoved a piece of pizza in her face with the other.  The court explained the statutory strangulation offenses as follows:

In 2010, the Legislature enacted several criminal statutes to address choking, strangling, and other forms of intentional interference with a victim’s breathing or circulation (see Penal Law art 121; William C. Donnino, Practice Commentaries McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 121.11, 2013 Pocket Part at 38).  At the time of enactment, the Legislature stated that domestic abusers use strangulation as “a form of power and control [that] has a devastating psychological effect on victims and a potentially fatal outcome” (Senate Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 2010, ch 405, 2010 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY at 1977) and noted that strangulation can be challenging to prosecute as it may not cause obvious injuries, thus allowing the crime to go unpunished (see Assembly Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 2010, ch 405).  In the statutory scheme, the severity of the offense is measured by the degree of the consequent harm.  A person commits the misdemeanor of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation when, “with intent to impede the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of another person, he or she a. applies pressure on the throat or neck of such person; or b. blocks the nose or mouth of such person,” with no resulting injury (Penal Law § 121.11).  Such acts resulting in “stupor, loss of consciousness for any period of time, or any other physical injury or impairment” constitute the felony of strangulation in the second degree (Penal Law § 121.12); strangulation in the first degree involves “serious physical injury” (Penal Law § 121.13).  People v Carte, 105808, 3rd Dept 12-5-13

 

One Party’s Video-Recording of Consensual Sexual Activity Without the Other Party’s Knowledge and Consent Violates the Unlawful Surveillance Statute

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Stein, the Third Department affirmed defendant’s conviction for violating New York’s Unlawful Surveillance statute (Penal Law 250.45).  This “first impression” case involved the defendant’s recording of his sexual activities with two women without the women’s knowledge or consent. The statute was found to apply to the video recording of consensual sexual activity by one of the parties involved in that activity.  Defendant was sentenced to a term in prison.  The relevant portions of the statute at issue provide:

“A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second degree when:

1.         For his or her own, or another person’s amusement, entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs . . . an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person’s knowledge or consent; or

2.         For his or her own, or another person’s sexual arousal or sexual gratification, he or she intentionally uses or installs . . . an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person’s knowledge or consent; or

3.         (a) For no legitimate purpose, he or she intentionally uses or installs . . . an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a motel, hotel or inn, without such person’s knowledge or consent” (Penal Law § 250.45 [1], [2], [3] [a]).  People v Puznarksi, 105460, 3rd Dept 12-5-13

 

Presumption in Favor of Resentencing (re: the New Scheme for Drug Offenses) Not Rebutted—Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Motion for Resentencing

The Second Department determined the factors relied upon by the resentencing court were not sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of resentencing under Criminal Procedure Law 440.46:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46. Although resentencing is not mandatory, there is a statutory presumption in favor of resentencing (see L 2004, ch 738, § 23; CPL 440.46[3]…). Under the circumstances of this case, the factors relied upon by the Supreme Court in denying the motion–the defendant’s criminal history, disciplinary infractions, and parole violations–are insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption. The defendant served more than 14 years in prison for a low-level drug crime committed when he was 19 years old. The defendant’s criminal history included only larcenous and low-level drug crimes, all committed before he was 20 years old. While the defendant violated his parole by failing to abide by certain parole rules, including, inter alia, by breaking curfew and by traveling to Georgia to be reunited with his family, he has never committed another crime or had a positive drug test. Under all of the circumstances presented here, “the presumption that the defendant is entitled to benefit from the reforms enacted by the Legislature based upon its judgment that the prior sentencing scheme for drug offenses like that committed by the defendant was excessively harsh, has not been rebutted”… . People v Simmons, 2013 NY Slip Op 08103, 2nd Dept 12-4-13

 

,

Evidence Relevant to a Reason to Fabricate is Never Collateral

The Third Department noted that the trial court erred (harmless) when it prohibited defendant from questioning witnesses against him (Corsi and Beebe) about grievances and a lawsuit defendant had filed.  Evidence of a witness’ reason to fabricate should not have been excluded as collateral:

…County Court improperly denied his motion requesting permission to question Corsi and Beebe about prior notices of discipline, grievances filed by defendant and defendant’s pending federal lawsuit … .  The court concluded that the issues were collateral and would be precluded unless the door were opened by a witness’s testimony reflecting bias or hostility toward defendant.  While “trial courts have broad discretion to keep the proceedings within manageable limits and to curtail exploration of collateral matters,” “extrinsic proof tending to establish a reason to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground”… .  People v Hughes, 105838, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

County Court Should Have Ordered a Hearing Re: Defendant’s 440 Motion to Vacate His Conviction—There Was Evidence Outside the Record that Required Development—Defendant Suffered from a Mental Illness and Was Taking Medications which May Have Affected His Judgment at the Time of the Plea Proceedings

The Third Department determined County Court erred when it did not order a hearing to determine defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction (by guilty plea).  The motion, as well as other evidence in the record (i.e., the presentence report), indicated defendant suffered from a mental illness and was taking medications that may have clouded his judgment when the guilty plea was entered:

Defendant presented further evidence of his mental illness and use of psychotropic medications upon his CPL 440.10 motion. In his own affidavit, defendant recounted experiencing extreme anxiety leading to his hospitalization, and stated that the medications he was taking made him feel intoxicated and in a haze during the plea and sentencing proceedings.  He also submitted the affidavit of a forensic nurse consultant, who indicated that the side effects of the medications that defendant was taking included drowsiness, dizziness, fatigue and abnormal thinking, and noted that Zoloft was not recommended for individuals with bipolar disorder.  The nurse opined that the combination and quantity of medications that defendant was taking at the time of his plea and sentencing “most certainly” would have affected his cognitive ability to understand the proceedings.

Although postjudgment motions may often be determined upon the record and submissions, a hearing is required where facts outside the record are material and would entitle a defendant to relief (see CPL 440.30 [5]…). Here, the proof reveals that defendant suffers from a mental illness and was taking psychotropic medications, and further development of the record is required to determine the extent to which his mental capacity was impaired and whether this rendered him unable to enter a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.  A hearing on defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion is the appropriate vehicle for collecting further evidence on this issue and determining whether defendant’s guilty plea should be vacated as a result … .  Accordingly, we find that County Court erred in denying defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing, and conclude that this matter must be remitted to County Court for this purpose. People v Hennessey, 105342, 3rd Dept  11-27-13

 

,

The Prosecutor’s Summation Was Filled With Impermissible Statements and Suggestions, Requiring Reversal of Defendant’s Conviction

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction because of the prosecutor’s impermissible statements in summation. The prosecutor vouched for his witnesses, suggested that in order to believe the defendant the jury would have to believe there was a conspiracy to convict him, involving the trial judge, and effectively shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:

During the course of his summation, the prosecutor, among other things, repeatedly vouched for the credibility of the People’s witnesses (“He’s telling the truth”).  Such comments clearly are impermissible … .  We reach a similar conclusion regarding the prosecutor’s statement that if the jury was inclined to believe defendant, he had “a bridge in Brooklyn [to] sell” as well … .  These errors were compounded by the prosecutor’s completely speculative comment that “the only reason that [defendant] wasn’t involved in the other robbery that [Young] and [Ervin] committed” not long after the attack upon the victim “was because he couldn’t be there with them” – suggesting that had defendant not been in custody at the time that the subsequent robbery was committed, he would have participated in that crime as well.  Although the prosecutor’s comment in this regard undeniably was improper …, it paled in comparison to his statement that, in order to believe defendant’s version of events, the jury had to accept that there was a far-reaching conspiracy to convict defendant — one that included the trial judge.  Specifically, the prosecutor stated, “[H]ere’s what you’ll have to find to find that the defendant is not guilty.  This is what you have to believe.  You have to believe there was a conspiracy against [defendant,] that every single one of the witnesses that came in here went over there, put their hand on the Bible, swore to tell the truth, and then lied and made up a story, and that the detectives from the Albany Police Department . . . got together and risked their entire careers and got together with . . . Ervin and . . . Young to frame [defendant].  Then they got me involved to continue prosecuting the case, and then they got Judge Herrick and Judge Breslin to go along with these cooperation agreements and allowed them to come in here and lie.”

The problem with the foregoing statement is three-fold. First, the comment made by the prosecutor relative to what the jury would need to believe in order to find that defendant was not guilty arguably shifted the burden of proof from the People to defendant.  Additionally, the prosecutor’s reference to a conspiracy in no way constitutes fair comment upon the evidence adduced.  Although defendant indeed testified that Young and Ervin were not being truthful, he never suggested that the People’s witnesses, among others, were engaged in a conspiracy to wrongfully convict him, and there is nothing in the record to support such a claim.  Finally, there is no question that one of the jury’s key roles in a criminal trial is to assess the credibility of the witnesses who testify on behalf of the People and, in those instances where the defendant takes the stand or otherwise presents witnesses in support of his or her defense, to weigh the credibility of the People’s witnesses vis-a-vis the defendant’s witnesses.  Such a “credibility contest” is entirely permissible, and there is nothing inherently prejudicial about that evaluative process.  Here, however, the prosecutor’s commentary set up a far different credibility contest by suggesting to the jury that it could believe defendant only if it also believed that the trial judge, among others, had permitted the People’s witnesses to lie to the jury and/or otherwise engaged in some form of misconduct.  Simply put, the prosecutor’s conduct in pitting defendant against the very judge who had presided over the course of the trial was inexcusable and, despite defense counsel’s prompt objection and County Court’s appropriate curative instruction, the prejudicial impact of that conduct cannot be ignored. People v Forbes, 104771, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

 

 

Defendant Should Have Been Advised of His Right to Be Heard in Resentencing Proceeding Pursuant to CPL 440.46

The Second Department determined the failure to inform defendant of his right to be heard in a resentencing proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.46 required a remittance:

The statutory procedures governing the determination of a motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 provide, in pertinent part, that “[t]he court shall offer an opportunity for a hearing and bring the applicant before it” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23; see CPL 440.46[3]…). The defendant’s presence is not required for the court’s threshold determination of the purely legal issue of whether the defendant meets the statutory eligibility requirements for relief pursuant to CPL 440.46 …, but the defendant is entitled to appear before the court and to be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to the merits of the resentencing motion … .

Here, the defendant was not brought before the Supreme Court prior to the court’s determination that, although he met the statutory eligibility requirements, substantial justice dictated that his motion for resentencing should be denied. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant was ever advised of his statutory right to be brought before the court, or that he knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily chose to relinquish that right … .The Supreme Court therefore failed to comply with the statutory mandate… .  People v Duke, 2013 NY Slip Op 07983, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

, ,

Double Hearsay in Presentence Report Did Not Render the Information Unreliable Re: a SORA Sex Offender Proceeding

The Second Department determined that the presence of double hearsay in a presentence report did not render the information unreliable such that it could not be considered in a SORA proceeding to determine the level of a sex offender:

“In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant’s admissions, the victim’s statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders . . . or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay” … . Here, as the People correctly point out, the presentence report prepared by the Department of Probation, the felony complaint sworn to and signed by the arresting officer, and the arrest report constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]) and provided clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was armed with a dangerous instrument during the commission of the rape … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the fact that certain statements contained in these documents constituted “double hearsay” did not necessarily render them unreliable for purposes of a SORA hearing … . Moreover, even though certain proof may not have been admissible at the criminal trial, the Legislature did not limit the types of materials admissible in a SORA proceeding to what would be admissible at a civil or criminal trial… . People v Dash, 2013 NY Slip Op 07948, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

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