You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Verdict Properly Set Aside Based Upon Trial Court’s Own Denial of Defendant’s Request for an Adjournment to Retain New Counsel/Criteria for Trial Court’s Setting Aside a Verdict Explained

The Fourth Department, after explaining the criteria for setting aside a verdict, ruled the trial court had properly set aside the verdict in this case due to the trial court’s own erroneous denial of defendant’s request for an adjournment to seek new counsel:

“Pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1), following the issuance of a verdict and before sentencing a court may set aside a verdict on ‘[a]ny ground appearing in the record which, if raised upon an appeal from a prospective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court’ ” … . “The power granted a Trial Judge is, thus, far more limited than that of an intermediate appellate court, which is authorized to determine not only questions of law but issues of fact . . . , to reverse or modify a judgment when the verdict is against the weight of the evidence . . . , and to reverse ‘[a]s a matter of discretion in the interest of justice’ ”… . * * *

In our view, the court’s refusal to grant defendant’s request for an adjournment was “an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” and effectively denied defendant the fundamental right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing …   On the date scheduled for suppression hearings, defense counsel, who had been retained by defendant’s family while defendant was incarcerated, withdrew defendant’s requests for suppression and sought an expedited trial without defendant’s knowledge or consent.  At the next court appearance, defendant requested an adjournment of the expedited trial to afford him time in which to retain another attorney.  The court, in denying that request, did not afford defendant “[a] reasonable time and a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice”…, particularly in view of the fact that the trial was expedited without defendant’s knowledge or consent… .  Inasmuch as we conclude that defendant was denied the fundamental right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing, reversal of the judgment of conviction on that ground would be required as a matter of law upon an appeal therefrom (see CPL 330.30 [1]), and the court therefore properly set aside the verdict. People v Rohadfox, 1367, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

Failure to Address Youthful Offender Eligibility Required Remittal

The Fourth Department determined the trial court did not consider whether the defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender and sent the matter back:

At sentencing, defense counsel made several applications for defendant to be treated as a youthful offender, but the court did not expressly rule on them; instead, the court imposed a sentence that was incompatible with youthful offender treatment.

“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]).  A sentencing court must determine whether to grant youthful offender status to every defendant who is eligible for it because, inter alia, “[t]he judgment of a court as to which young people have a real likelihood of turning their lives around is just too valuable, both to the offender and to the community, to be sacrificed in plea bargaining” … .  “[W]e cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the. . . [applications] as . . . denial[s] thereof” … .  Furthermore, even if the court had denied the applications, there is no information in the record from which we could ascertain whether the court properly did so in the exercise of its discretion, or whether it improperly acceded to the prosecutor’s plea conditions.  People v Potter, 1199, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

,

Failure to Turn Over Brady Material Until the Day of Trial Required Reversal

The Fourth Department determined the prosecution’s failure to turn over Brady material (911 tape recording) until the day of trial required reversal:

“To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material . . . In New York, where a defendant makes a specific request for [an item of discovery], the materiality element is established provided there exists a ‘reasonable possibility’ that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” … .

Here, the 911 recording is exculpatory because it includes the voice of an unidentified person referring to a white male suspect, and defendant herein is a black male.  Although defendant received the 911 recording as part of the Rosario material provided to him on the first day of trial, he was not “given a meaningful opportunity to use the exculpatory evidence”… . People v Carver, 1311, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

,

Counsel’s Failure to Object to References to Defendant’s Nickname Constituted Ineffective Assistance/Court’s Dismissal of an Entire Jury Panel Was Reversible Error

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction finding defense counsel ineffective for failure to object to the repeated references (by witnesses and the prosecutor) to the defendant’s nickname “killer.”  In addition, the Fourth Department determined the trial judge committed reversible error when he dismissed an entire jury panel:

Where, as here, a jury panel is “properly drawn and sworn to answer questions truthfully, there must be legal cause or a peremptory challenge to exclude a [prospective] juror” (…see CPL 270.05 [2]).  By dismissing the entire jury panel without questioning the ability of the individual prospective jurors to be fair and impartial …, the court deprived defendant of a jury chosen “at random from a fair cross-section of the community” (Judiciary Law § 500…). People v Collier, 8, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

, ,

Impeachment of Defendant With a Statement Made by Defendant’s Attorney Deemed Proper

The First Department determined the impeachment of the defendant with a statement made by the defendant’s attorney at arraignment was proper:

The court properly admitted a statement made at arraignment by defendant’s counsel, who was also trial counsel, to impeach defendant after he testified to a different version of the events … At the arraignment, the attorney stated that defendant was the source of the information, and the attorney was clearly acting as defendant’s authorized agent when she provided this information to the arraignment court for her client’s benefit …, notwithstanding her assertion at trial that she had inaccurately conveyed her client’s version of the incident. Introduction of the statements did not require the People to call counsel as a witness against her client … , and the People never sought to do so. People v Ortiz, 2014 NY Slip Op 00616, 1st Dept 2-4-14

 

,

Trial Court’s Failure to Address Defendant’s Requests to Proceed Pro Se Required Reversal

The First Department determined defendant had been deprived of his constitutional rights when the trial court failed to conduct a “dispassionate inquiry” in response to defendant’s repeated requests to proceed pro se:

A criminal defendant’s right to represent himself is a fundamental right guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions. “[F]orcing a lawyer upon an unwilling defendant is contrary to his basic right to defend himself if he truly wants to do so” … . The only function of the trial court, in assessing a timely request to proceed pro se, is to ensure that the waiver was made intelligently and voluntarily …. . This requirement is not satisfied “simply by repeated judicial entreaties that a defendant persevere with the services of assigned counsel, or by judicial observations that a defendant’s interests are probably better served through a lawyer’s representation” … .

Defendant’s requests to proceed pro se were denied by the court without any inquiry whatsoever. People v Lewis, 2014 NY Slip Op 00592, 1st Dept 2-4-14

 

No Reference to When Child-Pornography Images Downloaded/Therefore Consecutive Sentences Could Not Be Imposed

The Third Department determined that consecutive sentences could not be imposed for the downloading of child pornography without specific reference to the date and time of each download:

Consecutive sentences are authorized when “‘the facts demonstrate that the defendant’s acts underlying the crimes are separate and distinct'” … .  The determination as to whether defendant committed separate and distinct acts of possession turns upon when the images came into his possession … .  While the accusatory instrument and defendant’s plea allocution each specified the date and time upon which the images were retrieved from defendant’s computer, there was no information regarding defendant’s act of downloading the images.  Accordingly, consecutive sentences were not authorized in the absence of such information… . People v Pardy, 105529, 3rd Dept 1-30-14

 

Parolees May Move for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, the Second Department determined that parolees are “in custody” within the meaning of the 2011 amendments to the Drug Law Reform Act and, therefore, parolees may move for resentencing under the act:

In 2011, a New York State budget enactment consolidated and modernized several state agencies and created new departments (see L 2011, ch 62). This legislation merged the New York State Department of Correctional Services and the New York State Division of Parole into a single agency, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (see id.). At that time, CPL 440.46(1) was amended by changing “department of correctional services” to “department of corrections and community supervision,” so that now “[a]ny person in the custody of the department of corrections and community supervision,” otherwise qualified, could apply to be resentenced (CPL 440.46[1]). People v Brown, 2014 NY Slip Op 00524, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

, ,

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

 

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