You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Waiver of Appeal Invalid; Counsel Did Not Take Position Adverse to Client Re: Pro Se Motion

In affirming the conviction, the Third Department determined the waiver of appeal (re; the harshness of the sentence) was not valid and defendant’s counsel had not take a position adverse to the defendant with respect to defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Although defense counsel responded negatively when the court asked if counsel knew of any legal basis for defendant’s motion, the Third Department explained that counsel was unaware of the contents of the motion at the time the court asked about it:

County Court failed to adequately distinguish the right to appeal from  those rights that are automatically forfeited upon  a guilty plea, thus rendering defendant’s appeal waiver invalid…. Moreover, no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was  also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence …. Nor do we  find that the deficiencies in the allocution are cured by defendant’s written appeal waiver…  * * *

…[D]efense counsel’s negative  response  to County  Court’s inquiry  at the outset of the hearing as to whether  “there [was] any  legal basis in [counsel’s] knowledge to allow [defendant] to withdraw his plea of guilty” was clearly not an opinion on the merits of defendant’s pro se motion – which counsel had not yet reviewed – and, thus, counsel did not thereby take a position adverse to that of his client or affirmatively undermine  the arguments  that defendant sought to present to the court… .  People v Pimentel, 104070, 3rd Dept 7-11-13

 

, ,

Prosecutor Need Not Accept Defendant’s Stipulation in Lieu of DNA Test

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of an Article 78 petition seeking prohibition with respect to an order that petitioner allow a buccal swab for DNA testing.  The petitioner argued that his offer to stipulate his DNA matched the DNA on two firearms should preclude the test. The Second Department held that a prosecutor was under no obligation to accept the offer to stipulate:

“[A] court order to obtain a [bodily] sample of a suspect may issue provided the People establish (1) probable cause to believe the suspect has committed the crime, (2) a clear indication’ that relevant material evidence will be found, and (3) the method used to secure it is safe and reliable”…. “In addition, the issuing court must weigh the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence to the investigation and the unavailability of less intrusive means of obtaining it, on the one hand, against concern for the suspect’s constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion on the other” …. Here, the petitioner … contends that the People’s motion should have been denied on the ground that his offer to stipulate that his DNA matched the DNA recovered from the two firearms at issue provided a less intrusive method of obtaining the evidence. However, the law is manifestly clear that the People are under no obligation to accept an offer by a defendant to stipulate to a fact or to an element of a charged crime …, and “the decision as to whether to decline or accept such a stipulation lies wholly within the prosecutor’s discretion”…. Accordingly, since the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, his petition is denied … .  Matter of Johnson v Shillingford, 2013 NY slip Op 05212, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

,

Therapeutic Dog Allowed In Court to Support Alleged Child Victim of Sexual Offenses During Trial Testimony

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sgroi, determined that the “courts of this State should permit the presence of a therapeutic ‘comfort dog’ in a trial setting when the court determines that the animal may provide emotional support for a testifying crime victim.”  The defendant was charged with predatory sexual assault against a child.  The alleged victim was his daughter who 15 years old at the time of trial.  It was alleged that the victim twice became pregnant by the defendant and the defendant arranged for abortions in both instances.  The Second Department found support for its determination in Executive Law section 642-a (procedures making the judicial process less threatening to child victims).  The Second Department rejected defendant’s arguments that the presence of the dog violated his right to due process of law and right of confrontation.  People v Tohom, 2013 NY Slip Op 05234, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

, ,

DNA Evidence Not Testimonial—No Denial of Right to Confrontation

In affirming defendant’s conviction, the Second Department noted that DNA evidence did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation because the challenged evidence was not testimonial:

[Defendant’s] right of confrontation (see US Const Sixth Amend) was not violated when an expert testified that a DNA profile produced by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (hereinafter OCME) from a sample of the decedent’s blood matched a DNA profile produced by the OCME from a sample of a stain on a pair of jeans given to the office by the police department. The DNA profiles were not testimonial …, but rather, were merely raw data that, standing alone, did not link the defendant to the crime… . The connection of the defendant to the crime was made by the testimony of police officers establishing that the defendant was wearing the subject jeans when arrested, and of the DNA expert, who testified that, based on his analysis, the two subject DNA profiles matched…. People v Pitre, 2013 NY slip Op 05231, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

,

Refusal to Allow Relative’s Testimony Did Not Deny Right to Present a Defense

The Second Department determined defendant was not denied his right to present a defense by County Court’s refusal to allow defendant’s sister-in-law to testify:

A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to produce witnesses, and “absent a showing of bad faith, an application to produce witnesses whose testimony would be relevant to the defense should not be denied”…. However, a trial court may, in its discretion, exclude evidence that is of slight or remote significance, speculative, lacking a good-faith factual basis, or solely based on hearsay….

In the instant case, the proposed testimony of the defendant’s sister-in-law regarding the relationship between the defendant and his wife consisted largely of hearsay, was cumulative to other evidence, and was only marginally, if at all, relevant. Consequently, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding that testimony, and that ruling did not deprive the defendant of the right to present a defense… .  People v Strzelecki, 2013 NY Slip Op 05233, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

,

Family Offense Must Be Established by Fair Preponderance

The Second Department determined the family offense of attempted assault in the second degree had not been “established by a fair preponderance of the evidence” in Family Court:

A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Court Act § 832;…). “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and the credibility determinations of that court, which has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are entitled to considerable deference on appeal” … .Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence did not support the Family Court’s determination that the appellant committed the family offense of attempted assault in the second degree (see Family Court Act §§ 812[1], 832; Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05[1]… .  Matter of Hubbard v Ponce DeLeon, 2013 NY slip Op 05211, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

,

Reference to Old Offense that Was Dismissed Okay in “Mental Abnormality/Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding

The Fourth Department determined that evidence of a 1991 offense that was dismissed with the record sealed was admissible in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 “dangerous sex offender” proceeding to determined whether defendant had a mental abnormality:

Evidence of prior crimes is commonly admissible in article 10 proceedings because it is probative of whether a designated felony was sexually motivated and whether a respondent has a mental abnormality…, and evidence of uncharged crimes likewise is admissible in article 10 proceedings because “Mental Hygiene Law article 10 does not limit the proof to acts that resulted in criminal convictions when considering the issue of mental abnormality”… . Matter of State of New York v Schraenkler,, 657, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

References to Fingerprint Evidence Processed by Non-testifying Technician Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation

In determining defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated by latent fingerprint evidence processed by a technician who did not testify, the Fourth Department explained:

The technician who processed and photographed the fingerprint did not compare the latent print to the fingerprints of defendant or any other suspect. Thus, the technician’s findings were not testimonial because the latent fingerprint, “standing alone, shed[s] no light on the guilt of the accused in the absence of an expert’s opinion that the [latent fingerprint] match[es] a known sample”… .Moreover, the analyst who determined that the latent print matched one of defendant’s fingerprints in fact testified at trial and was available for cross-examination.    Therefore, defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him was not violated… .  People v Jackson, 645, 4th Dept 7-5-13

TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY

 

,

Affidavit Stating that Third Party Confessed to Murder Required a Hearing Pursuant to a Motion to Vacate the Judgment of Conviction Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court finding that a hearing should be held on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based on newly discovered evidence.  The evidence was an affidavit from a person to whom a third person is alleged to have confessed to the murder.  The Fourth Department determined the hearsay statement could be considered as a basis for the 440 motion because it met the criteria of a statement against penal interest and, although there was no showing the declarant was unavailable (a criterium for admissibility under this hearsay exception), it was reasonable to assume the declarant would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to testify (thereby becoming unavailable).

We agree with defendant that where, as here, the declarations exculpate the defendant, they “are subject to a more lenient standard, and will be found ‘sufficient if [the supportive evidence] establish[es] a reasonable possibility that the statement might be true’ ”…. That is because “ ‘[d]epriving a defendant of the opportunity to offer into evidence [at trial] another person’s admission to the crime with which he or she has been charged, even though that admission may . . . be offered [only] as a hearsay statement, may deny a defendant his or her fundamental right to present a defense’ ” ….  Although the People contend that there is no evidence that the third party is unavailable, we conclude that, inasmuch as the statements attributed to the third party implicate him in a murder, there is a likelihood that, if called to testify at a trial, he would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and thus become unavailable … .  People v McFarland, 729, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Evidence Insufficient to Support Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree—No One In Line of Fire

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree in a shooting case where there was no evidence anyone was near the line of fire:

“A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct [that] creates a grave risk of death to another person” (Penal Law § 120.25). The evidence at trial established only that defendant stood on a street corner and fired up to five shots from a handgun. The People “presented no evidence that any person . . . ‘was in or near the line of fire’ ” so as to create a grave risk of death to any such person… .  People v Stanley, 757, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

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