You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD AN INDEPENDENT-SOURCE HEARING BEFORE ALLOWING THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AT TRIAL; HEARING AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, reversing the conviction and ordering an independent-source hearing and a new trial, found the record insufficient to determine whether the undercover officer had an independent source for his in-court identification of the defendant. Supreme Court, rather than holding an independent-source hearing, relied on the undercover officer’s prior testimony at the probable cause hearing. But the Court of Appeals found that testimony insufficient:

… [W]e address whether Supreme Court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for an independent source hearing and, instead, used an undercover police officer’s prior testimony at a probable cause hearing to render a determination on whether the officer had an independent source for his prospective in-court identification of defendant. … [T]he trial court erred in admitting the undercover officer’s in-court identification without a hearing record sufficient to support an independent source determination for the identification. * * *

… [At the probable cause hearing] the undercover testified that he had never interacted with the seller before the date in question and did not interact with the seller directly during the buy and bust. Although the undercover described the seller’s clothes, he did not provide a physical description of the seller. He did, however, testify about his close proximity to the seller—close enough to hear that the intermediary and the seller were having a conversation, but not their words. … [H]is testimony did not address how long the seller was within his sight or the nature of his confirmatory identification of defendant. People v Williams, 2024 NY Slip Op 02128, CtApp 4-23-24

Practice Point: Here the trial judge relied on the officer’s testimony at the probable cause hearing to demonstrate the officer had an independent source for his in-court identification of the defendant. The testimony was deemed too weak to demonstrate an independent source. New trial and independent-source hearing ordered.

 

,

BEFORE ADMITTING NON-EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A VIDEO, THE BASIS SHOULD BE DETERMINED OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, THE PARTY OFFERING THE WITNESS MUST DEMONSTRATE THE RELIABILITY OF THE WITNESS, AND THE NEED FOR THE TESTIMONY MUST BE DEMONSTRATED; IN ADDITION, A THOROUGH RECORD MUST BE CREATED AND THE JURY SHOULD BE INSTRUCTED THEY ARE FREE TO REJECT THE NON-EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reversing the Appellate Division, over a concurrence, determined the “non-eyewitness” who purported to identify the defendant in a video was not shown to be sufficiently familiar with the defendant and there was no showing that the jury faced an obstacle to making the identification:

This case concerns an increasingly prevalent issue: when may someone who is not an eyewitness to a crime testify to a jury that the defendant is the person depicted in a photo or video. We hold that such testimony may be admitted where the witness is sufficiently familiar with the defendant that their testimony would be reliable, and there is reason to believe the jury might require such assistance in making its independent assessment. Here, there was no showing that the proffered witness was sufficiently familiar with the defendant to render his testimony helpful, or that the jury faced an obstacle to making the identification that the witness’s testimony would have overcome. * * *

… [B]efore admitting lay non-eyewitness identification testimony, a court should inquire as to the basis of the witness’s familiarity outside the presence of the jury in a separate hearing or voir dire, as the court properly did here. The party offering the witness—in most cases the People—bears the burden of establishing that their testimony would both be helpful and necessary. … [I]t is incumbent on both parties to create a thorough record to aid the court in its determination and to allow for meaningful appellate review. … [I]t would be appropriate for the trial court to provide cautionary jury instructions, both at the time of the testimony and during the final charge, explaining to the jury that lay non-eyewitness identification testimony is mere opinion testimony that they may choose to accept or reject, and reminding the jurors that because they are the finders of fact, it is their opinion as to whether the defendant is depicted in the surveillance footage that matters … . People v Mosley, 2024 NY Slip Op 02125, CtApp 4-23-24

Practice Point: Here the Court of Appeals offers guidance on the use of non-eyewitness testimony to identify the defendant in a video. The reliability of the witness and the need for the testimony must be demonstrated outside the presence of the jury. A full record must be made. And the jury should be instructed they are free to reject the testimony.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 3 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PROHIBITS CONSIDERATION OF A NEW YORK JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSEMENT, CONSIDERATION OF A NEW JERSEY JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION IS NOT PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, determined that, although a New York juvenile delinquency adjudication under article 3 of the Family Court Act cannot be considered in a SORA risk-level determination, a New Jersey juvenile delinquency adjudication can be considered:

Although the express language in the Guidelines provides that a juvenile delinquency adjudication constitutes proof for the assessment of points under risk factors 8 and 9, in People v Campbell (98 AD3d 5), this Court held that a juvenile delinquency adjudication rendered under Family Court Act article 3 could not properly be considered in a SORA proceeding. * * *

… [T]his Court’s holding in Campbell does not preclude a SORA court from considering the defendant’s New Jersey adjudication. As discussed above, the prohibition in Campbell rested on the language of Family Court Act § 381.2 … . The Legislature, while protecting Family Court Act article 3 proceedings, has also identified the age of a sex offender at the time of the first sex offense to be a factor “indicative of high risk of repeat offense” to be considered under the Guidelines … , in addition to the nature of prior offenses … . While an adjudication or statements made to the court or an officer in a Family Court Act article 3 proceeding may not be used as proof at a SORA hearing, the People are not precluded from establishing the underlying conduct by other means … . The defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication was not rendered under New York’s Family Court Act article 3, and, thus, the provisions of the Family Court Act … do not apply to it. People v Hart, 2024 NY Slip Op 02071, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point: A New York juvenile delinquency adjudication cannot be considered in a SORA risk-level assessment because of a prohibition in the Family Court Act. Because the Family Court Act does not apply to a New Jersey juvenile delinquency determination, and because New Jersey does not have a similar prohibition, the New Jersey adjudication can be considered in a New York SORA risk-level assessment.

 

, ,

ACQUITTAL ON THE RAPE AND FORCIBLE TOUCHING CHARGES RENDERED THE “ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD” CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s “endangering the welfare of a child” conviction, determined defendant’s acquittal on the rape and forcible touching charges rendered the conviction “against the weight of the evidence:”

In conducting our weight of the evidence review, we consider the jury’s acquittal on other counts, and, under the circumstances of this case, find the jury’s acquittal on the other counts supportive of a reversal of the conviction on the count of endangering the welfare of a child … . Here, the defendant was charged with, but acquitted of, rape in the second degree, rape in the third degree, and forcible touching, and the alleged conduct that formed the basis of those charges was essentially the same alleged conduct that formed the basis of the charge of endangering the welfare of a child. Once the jury discredited the complainant’s testimony with respect to the charges of rape and forcible touching, the record was devoid of any evidence that the defendant “knowingly act[ed] in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old” … , as charged on the count of endangering the welfare of a child. People v Liston, 2024 NY Slip Op 02066, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point; Defendant was acquitted of the rape and forcible touching charges which were based on the same allegations as was the conviction on the “endangering the welfare of a child” charge. The conviction, therefore, was “against the weight of the evidence.”

 

A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER MUST CONSENT TO COMMUNITY SERVICE IMPOSED AS PART OF A SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying the sentence imposed by County Court, noted that the defendant youthful offender did not consent to community service as part of his sentence, as required by the Penal Law:

… [A] court may require a defendant, as a condition of a sentence of probation, to “[p]erform services for a public or not-for-profit corporation, association, institution[,] or agency” (Penal Law § 65.10[2][h]; cf. CPL 170.55). However, a community service condition “may only be imposed upon conviction of” certain types of crimes, including a “class E felony, or a youthful offender finding replacing any such conviction, where the defendant has consented to the amount and conditions of such service” … . …

… [T]he defendant correctly asserts that “the record is . . . devoid of any indication that [he] actually consented to the terms and conditions of community service imposed at the time of sentencing” … . The comments of defense counsel at sentencing did not provide the requisite consent, as defense counsel’s suggestion of community service was made in the context of arguing that a term of incarceration was unwarranted. In any event, even if defense counsel’s statements could be construed as providing the defendant’s “consent to the possibility of community service . . . , there is no proof whatsoever on the record that [the] defendant consented to the amount and conditions of the community service actually imposed by [the] County Court, which is what is specifically required by [Penal Law § 65.10(2)(h)]” … . People v Joseph D., 2024 NY Slip Op 02064, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point: Penal Law 65.10 requires the consent of a youthful offender to community service as part of a sentence.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER; THE JURY’S REJECTION OF DEFENDANT’S “EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE” DEFENSE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REDUCED; THE STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S MENTAL ILLNESS AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s murder conviction to manslaughter first degree, over an extensive dissent, determined the jury’s determination that defendant failed to prove he was acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” (Penal Law § 125.25[1][a]), was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, who suffered from mental illness, had been involuntarily committed to to a medical facility. The victim, who was beaten and strangled, allegedly sexually assaulted defendant in the shower. The dissent argued defense counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce evidence of defendant’s mental illness in support of the motion to suppress statements defendant made to a detective:

… [W]e find that the jury’s determination that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” (Penal Law § 125.25[1][a]) when he killed the victim was against the weight of the evidence. The defendant’s state of mind is a subjective question, and the existence of a reasonable excuse is an objective question … . The first element, 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 second element requires an objective determination as to whether there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance, and “[w]hether 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'” … .

From the dissent:

At the suppression hearing, the People presented the testimony of the detective who had interviewed the defendant. The defense did not present any evidence. Defense counsel was well aware of the … voluminous psychiatric documentation concerning the defendant’s mental illness. However, defense counsel failed to move to admit into evidence any of these records. Rather, in support of the motion to suppress, defense counsel merely presented arguments that the defendant’s mental state at the time that the Miranda warnings were administered precluded the admissibility of his statements to the detective. People v Andrews, 2024 NY Slip Op 01935, Second Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: Here, the appellate court determined the jury’s rejection of defendant’s “extreme emotional disturbance” affirmative defense was against the weight of the evidence. The murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter first degree.

 

,

ABSENT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, A MANUAL BODY-CAVITY SEARCH MUST BE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY A WARRANT; THE DRUGS REMOVED FROM DEFENDANT’S BODY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the drugs were removed from defendant’s body during a manual body-cavity search, which requires a warrant specifically allowing it absent exigent circumstances. The warrant allowing the search of defendant’s person did not specifically authorize a manual body-cavity search and no exigent circumstances were alleged. The drugs should have been suppressed:

“There are three distinct and increasingly intrusive types of bodily examinations undertaken by law enforcement after certain arrests”; namely, a strip search, a visual body cavity inspection, and a manual body cavity search … . As relevant here, “[a] ‘strip search’ requires the arrestee to disrobe so that a police officer can visually inspect the person’s body” … , whereas “a visual body cavity inspection involves the inspection of the subject’s anal or genital areas without any physical contact by the officer and, in contrast, a manual body cavity search includes some degree of touching or probing of a body cavity that causes a physical intrusion beyond the body’s surface” … . * * *

Here, the search warrant that had been previously obtained authorized the search of defendant’s person but did not authorize a manual body cavity search. Notably, the warrant application made no such request. Moreover, although exigent circumstances bypassing the warrant requirement may be shown where “the drugs were in imminent danger of being destroyed, disseminated or lost, or that defendant was in medical distress” .. , no such showing has been made here. People v Chase, 2024 NY Slip Op 01837, Third Dept 4-4-24

Practice Point; Here there were no exigent circumstances and the warrant permitting a search of defendant’s person did not specifically authorize a manual body-cavity search. The drugs removed from defendant’s person during a manual body-cavity search should have been suppressed.

 

,

HERE THE JUDGE’S DECISION TO EMPANEL AN ANONYMOUS JURY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT REASONS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the judge had not set forth sufficient reasons for withholding the identities of the jurors. The jury remained anonymous throughout the trial. Jurors were referred to solely by their juror numbers:

… County Court did not cite any threats to this jury and instead based its refusal to disclose the identities of prospective jurors upon a ground that the Court of Appeals has specifically found to be inadequate, namely, “anecdotal accounts from jurors in unrelated cases” … . The People concede that County Court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury, in fact, but argue that reversal is not required because the issue is unpreserved and the error is, in any event, harmless. We disagree on both counts. First, when County Court announced that it would not disclose the names of the prospective jurors, defense counsel immediately “object[ed] to that” and argued that no factual showing of a need for anonymity had been made in this matter. County Court then “den[ied] [the] application” and “note[d] [the] exception.” Defendant therefore preserved the argument for our review by registering an objection to County Court’s refusal to disclose the identities of the jurors in a manner that permitted the trial court to address the issue (see CPL 470.05 [2] …). Second, for the reasons set forth in People v Flores (153 AD3d at 193-195), we are unpersuaded that harmless error analysis is applicable to such an error. Thus, reversal and remittal for a new trial is required. People v Heidrich, 2024 NY Slip Op 01841, Third Dept 4-4-24

Practice Point: Although an anonymous jury may be appropriate is some circumstances, the failure to support the decision to withhold the identities of the jurors must be justified by sufficient reasons. Here the reasons (anecdotal account from jurors in other cases) were deemed insufficient and a new trial was ordered.

 

, , ,

BRADY MATERIAL TURNED OVER TO DEFENDANT AFTER HE PLED GUILTY MAY HAVE AFFECTED HIS DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT PLEA OFFER TO ACCEPT AND WHETHER TO MOVE TO DISMISS CERTAIN CHARGES; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea. After the plea a new prosecutor turned over Brady material which had not been disclosed prior to the plea. Under the facts of the case, defendant’s awareness of the Brady material may have affected his decision to plead guilty to criminal possession of a weapon, a C felony. Therefore a hearing on the 440 motion should have been held:

… [T]he [Brady] evidence may have had an impact on the other charges that may have had an effect on what defendant was allowed to plead to — specifically, the attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree counts … . … [T]hese charges meant that because defendant was indicted with a class B armed felony offense, his plea of guilty was required to be at least to a class C violent felony offense (see CPL 220.10 [5] [d] [i]). The lowest charge that satisfied this requirement was criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, meaning that, based on the evidence before defendant at the time of his plea and sentencing, this was the most favorable charge that he could obtain — a point acknowledged at sentencing. Assuming, without deciding, that such evidence constituted Brady materials that were not disclosed, and further recognizing that the gravamen of the People’s main argument suggests that this evidence does impact the other charges against defendant, the record is unclear what impact the disclosure of this evidence may have had on defendant’s decision to accept or reject the plea offer — particularly in the context of CPL 220.10 (5) (d) (i) and a potential motion to dismiss certain charges (see CPL 245.25 [2]; see also CPL 440.10 [1] [b], [h] … ). Therefore, under the unique circumstances of this case … it was an error for County Court to decide the motion without an evidentiary hearing … . People v Harries, 2024 NY Slip Op 01843, Third Dept 4-4-24

Practice Point: Where the Brady material turned over to the defendant after he pled guilty may have affected his decisions about what plea offer to accept and whether to move to dismiss certain charges, defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without first holding an evidentiary hearing.

 

, , ,

THE TRANSFER OF DEFENDANT’S CASE TO A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE EXPLANATION OF A CONFLICT WITHIN THE DA’S OFFICE; HOWEVER, THE TRANSFER BACK TO THE DA’S OFFICE WAS NOT BASED ON AN EXPLANATION WHY THE CONFLICT WAS NO LONGER A PROBLEM; THE TRANSFER BACK TO THE DA’S OFFICE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, reversing County Court, determined the prosecution of defendant’s case should not have been transferred from the special prosecutor, appointed two months before because of a conflict within the DA’s office, back to the DA’s office. The Third Department noted that the initial decision to appoint a special prosecutor based on a conflict was supported by the application, but there was no explanation why that conflict no longer existed such that the DA’s office could ultimately handle the case:

County Law § 701 does not specifically detail the procedure to be followed when a special prosecutor is relieved of his or her appointment, and there is little case law relevant to this issue …; however, it is apparent that the only options are to either appoint another special prosecutor or to return the matter, if appropriate, to the DA’s office. Indeed, certain policy considerations weigh in favor of allowing the DA’s office to prosecute the case, namely, a “public interest in having prosecutorial duties performed, where possible, by the constitutional officer chosen by the electorate” … . Here, however, the DA’s office had, less than two months prior, sought appointment of a special prosecutor based upon a conflict. Based upon this sworn assertion of a conflict, County Court (Lambert, J.) entered an order disqualifying the DA’s office and appointing the special prosecutor. Then, when subsequently returning the matter to the disqualified DA’s office, no record was made as to why disqualification was no longer necessary. From the scant record of what occurred here, it is clear that defendant’s concerns regarding the DA’s office’s prior disqualification and possible conflict fell on deaf ears. Thus, because on this record we cannot determine why County Court (Burns, J.) deemed it appropriate to no longer disqualify the DA’s office, we find that the court committed reversible error in returning the matter to the DA’s office … . People v Faison, 2024 NY Slip Op 01836, Third Dept 4-4-24

Practice Point: Just as the transfer of a criminal prosecution from the DA’s office to a special prosecutor based upon a conflict within the DA’s office requires a valid explanation, the transfer of the criminal prosecution from the special prosecutor back to the DA’s office requires a valid explanation why the conflict is no longer a problem. Here the absence of an explanation rendered the transfer back to the DA’s office reversible error.

 

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