You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Jury Should Have Accepted Extreme Emotional Disturbance Affirmative Defense

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, over a dissent, the Second Department determined the jury’s failure to reduce the defendant’s conviction to manslaughter because he was under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance when he killed his girlfriend was against the weight of the evidence.  The opinion describes the nature and causes of the defendant’s emotional state in great detail. The court explained the “extreme emotional disturbance” affirmative defense as follows:

We begin our analysis by examining the nature and scope of the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. Penal Law §§ 125.25(1)(a) and 125.20(2), “[r]ead in tandem,” together “provide that a defendant who proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she committed a homicide while under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse’ is guilty of manslaughter and not murder” … . The defense of extreme emotional disturbance does not negate intent (see Penal Law § 125.20[2]…). Instead, the “defense allows a defendant charged with the commission of acts which would otherwise constitute murder to demonstrate the existence of mitigating factors which indicate that, although [ ] not free from responsibility for [the] crime, [defendant] ought to be punished less severely” … . Although the defense of extreme emotional disturbance is “an outgrowth of the heat of passion’ doctrine which had for some time been recognized by New York as a distinguishing factor between the crimes of manslaughter and murder,” the defense is broader than the “heat of passion” doctrine, and was intended to apply to a “wider range of circumstances” … .

The defense of extreme emotional disturbance comprises two elements. The first element is “wholly subjective” and”involves a determination that the particular defendant did in fact act under extreme emotional disturbance, that the claimed explanation as to the cause of his action is not contrived or sham” … . The subjective element “focuses on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime and requires sufficient evidence that the defendant’s conduct was actually influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance” … . The subjective element is generally associated with a loss of self-control … . The second element, which the Court of Appeals has acknowledged to be “more difficult to describe,” requires that an objective determination be made as to whether there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance … . “Whether such a reasonable explanation or excuse exists must be determined by viewing the subjective mental condition of the defendant and the external circumstances as the defendant perceived them to be at the time, however inaccurate that perception may have been'” … . People v Sepe, 2013 NY Slip Op 06030, 2nd Dept 9-25-13

 

Sentencing Court Can Correct Illegal Sentence If Within Initially-Stated Range

The Second Department explained that the trial court can properly resentence a defendant to correct an illegal sentence as long as the new sentence is within the initially-stated range.  Here, after sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the court realized it was required to sentence defendant to a determinate term and postrelease supervision:

Under the circumstances of this case, the County Court properly resentenced the defendant. A trial court has the inherent power to correct an illegal sentence, over a defendant’s objection, where the corrected sentence falls within the range initially stated by the court …. Here, after the County Court learned that the indeterminate sentence imposed on the defendant for the conviction of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree was illegal, it exercised its inherent power to correct the sentence by imposing a determinate term of imprisonment of two years followed by two years of postrelease supervision. This sentence was within the range initially stated by the County Court … . People v Kaufman, 2013 NY slip Op 06020, 2nd Dept 9-25-13

 

Failure to Inform Defendant of the Specific Period of Postrelease Supervision Applicable to the Offense Defendant Pled To Required Vacation of Sentence

Over a dissent, the Second Department determined the failure to advise the defendant of the specific postrelease-supervision aspect of his sentence at the time of the entry of the plea pursuant to a plea agreement required that the sentence be vacated, even though defendant was informed his maximum sentencing exposure included a period of postrelease supervision:

…[A]fter informing the defendant that his maximum sentencing exposure included a period of postrelease supervision, the court extended a specific sentence offer, specifying the range of the terms of imprisonment involved …, and this offer omitted any reference to postrelease supervision. The court has a duty to ensure, at the time a plea of guilty is entered, that the defendant is aware of the terms of the plea …. The County Court’s failure to inform the defendant, at the time he entered his plea of guilty, that his sentence would, in fact, include a period of postrelease supervision, prevented his plea from being entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. People v Divalentino, 2013 NY Slip Op 06013, 9-25-13

 

“Criminal Enterprise” Does Not Require Continuity of Criminal Participants

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, the First Department determined that, with respect to “enterprise corruption,” the term “criminal enterprise” (Penal Law 460.10[3]) requires “a continuity of existence, structure and criminal purpose beyond the scope of individual criminal incidents”…, not criminal “participants[.]”  The case involved fraudulent billing of insurers by the defendants who were hired to provide medical and chiropractic services by one Vinarsky:

Both defendants * * * argue that because Vinarsky was essential to the operation of the [clinic], it lacked the structure to maintain the necessary continuity of existence in his absence. Thus, they conclude, the clinic did not meet the statutory requirements of a criminal enterprise essential to sustain conviction for their participation in its operation. * * *

The evidence before the jury amply demonstrates that defendants were engaged in a criminal enterprise overseen by Vinarsky. It embraced more than one clinic, extended over a period of years, and involved a succession of patients whose medical history was used to procure income by an organization structured to facilitate the fraudulent billing of insurers, which paid some $6 million for services allegedly provided by the … clinic. Thus, the jury was warranted in concluding that the criminal enterprise had a continuity that extended beyond any individual patient or transaction. People v Keschner, 2013 NY Slip Op 05975, 1st Dept 9-24-13

 

Statements Made In Plea Allocution Negated Guilt

The Third Department vacated defendant’s plea to forgery because, during the plea allocution, the defendant indicated he signed his own name on the credit card receipts.  Signing one’s own name cannot constitute forgery:

Although defendant waived his right to appeal and did not preserve his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea by moving to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is triggered because he made a statement during the allocution that cast doubt upon his guilt … .  During the allocution, defendant admitted to purchasing several items at various stores using a credit card that did not belong to him. When asked whether he had signed the credit card receipts using the name of the person to whom the card had been issued, defendant informed County Court that he did not know whose name was on the card and that he had signed the receipts in his own name.  * * *

Here, defendant’s signing of his own name to the credit card receipts would render him both the actual and ostensible maker of the instrument, and the making of the instrument would not constitute a forgery … .  Accordingly, defendant’s statement that he signed his own name to the receipts implicated the voluntariness of his guilty plea to forgery in the second degree, requiring further inquiry from County Court.  As the court failed to conduct such an inquiry, defendant’s plea must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court.  People v Morehouse, 104770, 3rd Dept 9-19-13

 

Imposition of Fine After Promise No Fine Would Be Imposed Required Vacation of Guilty Plea

The Third Department vacated defendant’s sentence because County Court promised the sentence would not include a fine, but County Court imposed a fine because a fine was required by law.  The court wrote:

Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with two counts of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.  County Court agreed, in return, to sentence him to an aggregate jail term of one year with no fines.  While County Court sentenced defendant to the contemplated jail term, it further imposed a fine of $1,000 on each count.  Defendant now appeals.

County Court promised defendant that his sentence would not include a fine, but such sentence would have been illegal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [b]…). The legal sentence that County Court imposed was inconsistent with that promise.  Although defendant failed to preserve this issue by moving to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, the sentence must nevertheless “be vacated, and the matter remitted . . . to afford . . . defendant the opportunity to accept the sentence that was actually imposed, or permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty”… .  People v Faulcon, 104625, 3rd Dept 9-19-13

 

Denial of Parole Supported by Evidence

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the Parole Board’s denial of parole was not arbitrary and capricious.  After noting that the 2011 amendments to Executive Law 259-c(4) did not apply retroactively, the court wrote:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred in concluding that the Parole Board’s determination was arbitrary and capricious … . Although the Parole Board’s primary focus in denying parole was the nature of the crime committed, the Parole Board also looked at the petitioner’s institutional record … . The Parole Board “need not expressly discuss each of [the statutory guidelines] in its determination” …, and it was not “required specifically to articulate every factor considered” … . Whether the Parole Board considered the proper factors and followed the proper guidelines are questions that should be assessed based on the “written determination . . . evaluated in the context of the parole hearing transcript” … . Here, the hearing transcript indicates that the Parole Board gave due consideration to a number of factors that reflected well on the petitioner, but that these factors did not outweigh those factors that militated against granting parole. Matter of Fraser v Evans, 2013 NY slip Op 05900, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

,

Defendant Did Not Consent to Entry of Police Into His Home—the Police Accompanied a Parole Officer for the Express Purpose of Investigating a Burglary—Motion to Suppress Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined evidence seized from defendant’s home and statements made by the defendant should have been suppressed.  Using the authority to visit parolees, the police accompanied the parole officer to defendant’s home as part of a burglary investigation. The defendant was arrested after stolen property was noticed by the police in the home.  In determining the trial court erred when it found defendant had consented to the entry of the police into his home, the court wrote:

When the People rely on consent to justify an otherwise unlawful police intrusion, they bear the “heavy burden” of establishing that such consent was freely and voluntarily given … . “Consent to search is voluntary when it is a true act of the will, an unequivocal product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice. Voluntariness is incompatible with official coercion, actual or implicit, overt or subtle” … . The People’s burden of proving voluntariness “cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority” … .

We agree with the defendant that the People failed to prove that his consent to the entry into his home was voluntary. Consent is not voluntary where an officer falsely represents facts that normally establish the exercise of police authority to which a person would ordinarily yield … . Here, pursuant to the conditions of the defendant’s release to parole supervision, he was obligated to allow his parole officer to enter his home to conduct a home visit and conduct a related search of his residence. The People showed no more than the defendant’s acquiescence to this authority, which does not sustain their burden of proving that he freely and voluntarily consented to the entry by the detectives and the sergeant for the purpose of investigating the subject burglaries. People v Marcial, 2013 NY Slip Op 05920, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

,

Disposition of Juvenile Delinquency Proceeding Reversed; Purpose Is Not to Punish

Over a dissent, the First Department reversed Family Court’s juvenile delinquency disposition which was based on the findings that, had the juvenile been an adult, he would have been guilty of two counts of sexual abuse 2nd and two counts of forcible touching 3rd.  The First Department eliminated the 12-month period of probation and granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal.  The juvenile was 13 years old at the time of the incident.  It was alleged the juvenile grabbed the 12-year-old complainant from behind by pulling on her backpack and, as she tried to get away, touched and squeezed her breasts and the right side of her buttocks.  He then tried to kiss her, ignored her when she said she needed to go to class, and demanded a hug in order to let her go.  The First Department noted that this was the juvenile’s first contact with the justice system, that he and his mother had been cooperative throughout, and that he was a good student (among other factors).  The court wrote:

…[T]the totality of appellant’s course of conduct, and his statements to the complaining witness, support the inference that he acted for the purpose of sexual gratification … . The court’s findings that appellant committed an act, that, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime, was, therefore, based on legally sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence … .

A juvenile delinquency adjudication, however, requires both a determination that the juvenile committed an act, that, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime and a showing, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the juvenile needs supervision, treatment or confinement (Family Ct Act §§ 345.1, 350.3, 352.1). Although the seriousness of the juvenile’s acts is an extremely important factor in determining an appropriate disposition …, it is not the only factor. The disposition is not supposed to punish a child as an adult, but provide effective intervention to “positively impact the lives of troubled young people while protecting the public” .. .

While the trial court properly found that appellant committed a delinquent act, there was insufficient support for its decision that appellant needed supervision, treatment or confinement (Family Ct Act §§ 352.1, 350.3). In addition, 12 months probation was not the least restrictive available alternative that would have adequately served the needs of appellant and society (Family Ct Act § 352.2…). Matter of Narvanda S, 2013 NY Slip Op 05855, 1st Dept 9-17-13

 

Obstructing Governmental Administration Conviction Reversed—Police Not Engaged in “Authorized Conduct”

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction for obstructing governmental administration as against the weight of the evidence. The court determined there was not sufficient proof the police were engaged in authorized conduct at the time of the contact with the defendant:

“A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he [or she] intentionally . . . prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference” (Penal Law § 195.05). Thus, a defendant may not be convicted of obstructing governmental administration unless it is established that the police were engaged in authorized conduct … . As determined by the Supreme Court, the initial chase of the defendant by the police was not supported by reasonable suspicion … . Further, in light of the defendant’s acquittal by the jury on the charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, which we may consider in conducting a weight of the evidence review … , the evidence, when properly weighed, did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer was performing an official function authorized by law when he tried to disarm the defendant following the chase … . Thus, the record reflects that, when considering whether the People satisfied the “performing an official function” element of the crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, the jury failed to give the weight properly due to its credibility finding that the defendant was not in possession of a weapon … .  People v Small, 2013 NY slip Op 05842, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

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