You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Count (on which Jury Could Not Reach a Verdict) Dismissed Before “Entry of Sentence” on the Remaining Count Can Be Reprosecuted after Appeal

The First Department determined the defendant could be retried on an attempted rape charge which was dismissed upon a motion by the prosecution after the jury was unable to reach a verdict on that count.  The defendant was convicted of the assault count.  The assault conviction was reversed on appeal and a new trial was ordered. The question before the court was whether, upon re-trial, the dismissed attempted rape count could be re-tried as well:

Upon remand, Supreme Court properly determined that the People were permitted to reprosecute the attempted rape charge, because that count of the indictment was deemed reinstated pursuant to CPL 470.55(1). Although the statute provides that a count is not deemed reinstated if it was dismissed on a “post-judgment order” (CPL 470.55[1][b]), the dismissal of the attempted rape charge occurred between the oral imposition of sentence and the entry of judgment … . There is nothing in the record to indicate that, before dismissing the count at issue, the court had done anything that could be construed as entry of a judgment. Since a judgment “is comprised of a conviction and the sentence imposed thereon and is completed by imposition and entry of the sentence” (CPL 1.20 [15][emphasis added]), “post-judgment” can only mean after entry.

Double jeopardy concerns did not bar retrying defendant on the attempted rape count. The first jury never returned any verdict on that count. Furthermore, defendant had no legitimate expectation that the dismissal of that count was final and irrevocable As noted, the statute provides that a reversal granting a new trial would automatically reinstate any counts dismissed under the circumstances presented here. Moreover, the record establishes that when the People moved to dismiss, they were engaging in the common practice of dismissing a charge as sufficiently covered by a conviction on another charge, an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that was frustrated by the reversal of the conviction. Defendant had no legitimate expectation that in the event of a reversal he would receive the windfall of having the dismissed charge stay dismissed.  People v Thomas, 2013 NY Slip Op 07833, 1st Dept 11-26-13

 

Defendant’s Placement of a Bag in the Engine Compartment Deemed Inconsistent with An Innocent Explanation

The First Department determined the observations made by the officer, including the placement of a bag under the hood of the car, provided reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (justifying the stop):

At a drug-prone intersection, experienced narcotics officers saw an illegally parked car, in which defendant and his passenger were making movements suggesting that something was being transferred. They then saw defendant close a clear plastic bag with his mouth, get out of the car while holding the bag, open the hood of the car, reach into the engine area and return to the car without the bag. Based on those observations, the police had reasonable suspicion that defendant had engaged in criminal activity, most likely a drug transaction … . In particular, it was highly suspicious for defendant to apparently secrete a bag under the hood of the car. This behavior was inconsistent with innocent explanations, such as repairing the car. Accordingly, the police conducted a lawful stop for the purpose of investigating criminal activity, and they properly detained and questioned defendant and the passenger.  People v Smalls, 20134 NY Slip Op 07866, 1st Dept 11-26-13

STREET STOPS, DE BOUR

 

Reopening of Suppression Hearing to Address Deficiency in People’s Case (Pointed Out by the Defense in Post-Hearing Papers) Okay (But See People v Kevin W, 187, Ct App 11-21-13)

The First Department determined the suppression court properly allowed the suppression hearing to be reopened to address a deficiency in the People’s case:

The court providently exercised its discretion in reopening the suppression hearing, after both sides had rested and submitted legal arguments but before any decision on the merits had been made, to allow the People’s witness to provide additional testimony establishing the legality of the police conduct … . “A request to present additional evidence in this type of situation should be addressed to the court’s discretionary power to alter the order of proof within a proceeding …, rather than being governed by the restrictions on rehearings set forth in People v Havelka (45 NY2d 636 [1978])” (id. at 481).

Defendant argues that since the reopening came after defense counsel had pointed out a deficiency in the People’s case, there was a heightened risk of tailored testimony. However, “one of the purposes of requiring timely and specific motions and objections, a requirement applicable to suppression hearings, is to provide the opportunity for cure … . It would be illogical to require a defendant, for preservation purposes, to point out a deficiency at a time when it can be corrected, but then preclude the People from correcting the deficiency. In Whipple, the Court of Appeals disapproved of such a notion, which it described as “a sort of gotcha’ principle of law” (97 NY2d at 7).  People v McCorkle, 2013 NY Slip Op 07835, 1st Dept. 11-26-13

 

,

A Sex Offender Cannot Be Confined to a Treatment Facility as Part of “Strict and Intensive Supervision” under Article 10

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera (over a dissent), determined that, pursuant to Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, a sex offender could either be confined or placed under strict and intensive supervision (SIST), not both.  Here the hearing court determined the People did not meet their burden demonstrating the offender (Nelson D) should be confined, but included confinement in a treatment facility (Valley Ridge) as part of strict and intensive supervision:

We conclude that article 10 provides for only two dispositional outcomes, confinement or an outpatient SIST regime. Therefore, we agree with Nelson D. that, absent a finding of the type of condition that statutorily subjects him to confinement, his placement at Valley Ridge constitutes involuntary confinement, in violation of the plain language of Mental Hygiene Law article 10.  We also agree that involuntary commitment, as part of a SIST plan, deprives Nelson D. of the statutorily proscribed procedures mandated for confinement under article 10. Matter the State of New York v Nelson D, 194, CtApp 11-26-13

 

, ,

“Something” Stuck in Victim’s Back Is Legally Sufficient Evidence of Displayed Firearm

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read (over a dissent), the Court of Appeals affirmed the first-degree robbery convictions of two co-defendants.  The Court determined evidence of “something” stuck into the victim’s back was legally sufficient evidence of a displayed firearm, and a show-up identification procedure (two hours after and five miles away from the robbery) was correctly found to be reasonable by the lower courts (generally an unreviewable mixed question of law and fact for the Court of Appeals).  People v Howard…, 189, 190, CtApp 11-26-13

 

,

A Factually Inconsistent Verdict Did Not Render the Evidence Insufficient to Support the Conviction

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman (over a dissent), the Court of Appeals determined a factual inconsistency in a jury verdict acquitting a defendant of one count and convicting him of another did not render the record evidence insufficient to support the conviction.  The defendant was charged with insurance fraud and arson.  The prosecution’s theory was the defendant burned a building down to recover the insurance proceeds.  The jury convicted the defendant of insurance fraud and acquitted him of arson.  In explaining the difference between a factually inconsistent verdict and a verdict not supported by legally sufficient evidence, the Court of Appeals wrote:

A verdict is factually inconsistent where, in light of the evidence presented, an acquittal on one count is factually irreconcilable with a conviction on another count … .  Factual inconsistency “which can be attributed to mistake, confusion, compromise or mercy – does not provide a reviewing court with the power to overturn a verdict” … .  If a jury renders a factually inconsistent verdict, the trial court “can point out the apparent inconsistency to the jurors, issue further appropriate instructions and ask them to continue deliberations. But a failure to take such action would not be an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” … .

In contrast, a conviction not supported by legally sufficient evidence should be overturned.  A conviction is legally insufficient where, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there is no “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt” … .

Factual inconsistency and legal insufficiency are analytically distinct.  One may inform the other – i.e., in some instances, a reviewing court may consider a jury’s acquittal on one count in reviewing the record to determine if a factually inconsistent conviction on another count is supported by legally sufficient evidence … . But it does not follow that such factual inconsistency in the verdict renders the record evidence legally insufficient to support the conviction.  Put another way, an acquittal is not a preclusive finding of any fact, in the same trial, that could have underlain the jury’s determination.

Therefore, even assuming, as submitted by the defendant, that the jury’s verdict in this case presented a factual inconsistency, it does not affect the propriety of his conviction. People v Abraham, 192, CtApp 11-26-13

 

,

Court’s Refusal to Give the Circumstantial Evidence Jury Instruction Required Reversal—No Direct Evidence Defendant Was Aware of Cocaine Hidden in Vehicle

The Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction determining the trial court erred when it refused to charge the jury on circumstantial evidence.  The case was based upon the constructive possession of a brick of cocaine found in a hidden compartment in a vehicle.  Defendant was not the owner of the vehicle, was not driving the vehicle, and was not the target of police surveillance:

It is well established that a “defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence instruction must be allowed when proof of guilt rests exclusively on circumstantial evidence” … .  Constructive possession can be proven directly or circumstantially, and the necessity of a circumstantial evidence charge should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.  In this case, the proof connecting defendant to the drugs was wholly circumstantial.  Defendant was not the owner or driver of the vehicle, nor was he the target of the surveillance operation, and there was no direct evidence that he was aware of the hidden compartment or that he exercised dominion and control over the concealed cocaine… . People v Santiago, 204, CtApp 11-26-13

 

, , ,

ARTICLE 10 PROCEEDINGS ARE CIVIL IN NATURE, HOWEVER THE COURT ANALYZED WHETHER RESPONDENT COULD REPRESENT HIMSELF AND WHETHER HE WAS AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE USING THE CRIMINAL LAW STANDARDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, determined that Article 10 sex-offender commitment proceedings are civil in nature, but analyzed respondent’s request to represent himself and whether respondent received ineffective assistance under the criminal-law standards:

Supreme Court did not err in denying respondent’s request to proceed pro se. Assuming, without deciding, that a respondent in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding has the same right of self-representation as a criminal defendant …, respondent’s request here was denied based on his failure to meet two prongs of the three-prong test:

“A defendant in a criminal case may invoke the right to defend pro se provided: (1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues” … .

Respondent made his request to proceed pro se only two business days before the second trial was scheduled to begin, which the court properly found untimely … . …The court properly denied his request based on … comments indicating that he would attempt to disrupt or prevent the orderly conduct of the trial …, along with the untimeliness of the request. …

Respondent was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Initially, we hold that while Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceedings are civil rather than criminal, and that ineffective assistance of counsel may only be considered in civil litigation if extraordinary circumstances are present, the indefinite and involuntary nature of confinement that may result in this type of proceeding constitutes such an extraordinary circumstance … .

Applying the criminal standard, we must determine whether “the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [the] particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation” … . Matter of State of New York v Timothy BB., 2013 NY Slip Op 07774 [113 AD3d 18], Third Dept 11-21-13

 

,

Resentencing to a Term of Imprisonment with a Maximum Greater than the Initial Sentence Violates Double Jeopardy Principles

The Third Department determined resentencing defendant to a term of imprisonment with a maximum greater than the initial sentence violated double jeopardy principles:

County Court violated double jeopardy principles when it imposed on defendant an aggregate sentence with a maximum of more than 10 years in prison.  “[T]he key to double jeopardy analysis of a sentence increase is whether the defendant had a legitimate expectation in the finality of his [or her] original sentence” … .  A court violates double jeopardy principles if it subjects a defendant to a greater maximum sentence upon resentencing after the original agreed-upon sentence has been determined to be illegal … .  At the time of resentencing, defendant had served two years of his 10-year prison sentence … .   As defendant had a reasonable expectation of finality in the maximum term of his prison sentence, namely that he would serve no more than 10 years in prison, imposing a maximum prison term greater than 10 years would run afoul of the double jeopardy clause … . Thus, we modify the resentence to an aggregate maximum of 10 years in prison.  People v DePerno, 105100, 3rd Dept 11-21-13

 

,

Revocation of Parole Based Upon Uncharged Assault Okay/Presence of Assault Victim at Revocation Hearing Excused

The Third Department determined petitioner’s parole was properly revoked even though the victim of the uncharged assault which triggered the revocation did not testify at the hearing:

Petitioner argues that he improperly was denied the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the victim.  While a “strong preference” for confrontation and cross-examination exists in parole revocation proceedings, the victim’s absence nevertheless may be excused “upon a specific finding of good cause” (…see Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [v]…).  Here, the victim refused to testify and could not be located despite extensive efforts by parole officials to do so.  Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge properly excused her absence and considered other evidence regarding the assault … . Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the fact the he was not indicted for any crimes stemming from the underlying assault did “not preclude a revocation of parole for the same conduct”… . Matter of Coston v NYS Division of Parole, 515013, 3rd Dept 11-21-13

 

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