You are here: / Criminal Law
,

In Sex-Offense Trial, Discovery of the Victim’s Psychiatric Records Properly Denied and Cross-Examination About Psychiatric History Properly Prohibited

In a sexual-offense case, the Fourth Department affirmed the trial court’s refusal to allow the defense access to the victim’s psychiatric records and the court’s preculsion of cross-examination of the victim about her psychiatric history:

Mental health records are discoverable “where a defendant can demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that the records contain ‘data relevant and material to the determination of guilt or innocence,’ a decision which will rest ‘largely on the exercise of a sound discretion by the trial court’ ”… ..  Here, the court reviewed the records in camera before ruling that defendant was not entitled to any portion of that victim’s mental health counseling records, and the court did not abuse its discretion in reaching that conclusion.

We reject defendant’s further contention that the court abused its discretion by precluding cross-examination of the same victim regarding her psychiatric history.  “A defendant has a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him through cross-examination.  With respect to the psychiatric condition of a witness, ‘the defense is entitled to show that the witness’s capacity to perceive and recall events was impaired by that condition’ ”… .  Here, defendant was permitted to question that victim about any medications that she was presently taking and whether those medications impaired her memory or affected her testimony.  However, defendant failed to show that her psychiatric history “would bear upon her credibility or otherwise be relevant”  … .  People v Tirado, 486, 4th Dept 8-15-13

 

Failure to Include Restitution in Plea Negotiations Precluded Imposing Restitution at Sentencing

The Second Department vacated defendant’s sentence because, although restitution was not part of the plea promise, restitution was imposed at sentencing:

At the sentencing proceeding, the defendant did not have a sufficient opportunity to object to the imposition of restitution. The court made a brief reference to “RJOs,” apparently referring to restitution judgment orders. After pronouncing the sentence, the court stated: “With respect to any and all surcharges, given the fact there’s significant restitution judgment order obligations here, I’m going to waive the surcharges.” Under these circumstances, the defendant’s contention will be addressed on the merits … .

Although a court is free to reserve the right to order restitution as part of a plea bargain, the plea minutes in this case do not indicate that the pleas of guilty were negotiated with terms that included restitution … . At sentencing, the defendant should have been “given an opportunity either to withdraw his plea[s] or to accept the enhanced sentence[s] that included both restitution and a prison sentence” …, or for the court to impose the sentences agreed upon at the plea proceedings. People v Pettress, 2013 NY Slip Op 05645, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

,

Child Properly Found to Be a Vulnerable Witness and Properly Allowed to Testify Outside the Presence of the Defendant in a Sexual -Offense Trial

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hinds-Radix, the Second Department determined the seven-year-old witness (who was the alleged victim of sexual offenses by the defendant) was properly declared a vulnerable witness pursuant to CPL 65.20 and was properly allowed to testify outside the presence of the defendant over closed circuit television.

…[W]e find that the Supreme Court properly declared the child to be a vulnerable witness. Since the child was seven years old at the time of the trial, she was “particularly young” …. Further, the defendant occupied a position of authority, since he was the child’s great uncle by marriage, the child regarded him as a family member …, he was responsible for the care of the child at the time the crime occurred, and he had frequent contact with her …. Thus, two of the factors set forth in CPL 65.20(10) were established by clear and convincing evidence … . It is also clear from the record that the emotional trauma the child experienced when she attempted to testify in open court about the crime substantially impaired her ability to communicate with the jury. Under all of the circumstances, the Supreme Court’s determination that the child was a vulnerable witness is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record … .

Furthermore, the child was properly permitted to testify outside of the physical presence of the defendant. The Supreme Court’s observations of the child when she was questioned in the courtroom, and the hearing testimony of the social worker, provided clear and convincing evidence that the cause of the child’s severe emotional upset was the defendant’s presence in the room …. Accordingly, the record supports the requisite specific finding that placing the defendant and the child in the same room during the testimony of the child would contribute to the likelihood that the child would suffer “severe mental or emotional harm” (CPL 65.20[11]).  People v Beltran, 2013 NY Slip Op 05638, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

,

Burden Upon Police to Determine Whether Defendant Represented by Counsel Explained

In affirming the denial of a motion to vacate a conviction after a hearing (over a substantial dissent), the Third Department explained the burden upon the police to determine whether a defendant is represented by counsel before questioning him. In this case the question was whether defendant’s attorney, who represented defendant in a robbery case resolved by a cooperation agreement and who initially was involved a homicide case in 2003, was still representing the defendant in the homicide case when the defendant was questioned about it in 2006:

Although [defendant’s attorney] clearly participated in the homicide investigation in 2003 and the police were well aware that he had entered into it as defendant’s counsel, the parties agree that there was a genuine lack of clarity …surrounding the question of whether that representation was limited to the cooperation agreement and had terminated once defendant was sentenced in the robbery case.

It is well settled that where, as here, there is any ambiguity as to whether the defendant is represented by counsel, the burden rests squarely on the police to resolve that ambiguity prior to questioning … .  Here, before questioning defendant in 2006, [the police] met with [defendant’s attorney], who told them unequivocally that he no longer represented defendant.  Inasmuch as the police fulfilled their obligation to resolve the ambiguity by determining that [the attorney’s] representation of defendant had terminated prior to questioning him, County Court did not err in concluding that defendant’s right to counsel had not been violated … .  People v McLean, 104691, 3rd Dept, 8-8-13

 

,

SORA Court Has Discretion to Deny Downward Departure Even When Mitigating Factor Demonstrated by Preponderance of Evidence

In affirming the SORA court’s denial of an application for a downward departure, the Second Department noted that even where the defendant makes a showing by a preponderance of the evidence in support of a mitigating factor, the court need grant the application:”

A sex offender’s successful showing by a preponderance of the evidence of facts in support of an appropriate mitigating factor does not automatically result in the relief requested, but merely opens the door to the SORA court’s exercise of its sound discretion upon further examination of all relevant circumstances'” … .  People v Martinez-Guzman, 2013 NY Slip Op 05561, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

 

,

Family Offense of Disorderly Conduct Established

The Second Department determined the family offense of disorderly conduct had been established by a fair preponderance of the evidence:

…[T]he petitioner established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence …, that the appellant, who …made verbal threats to the petitioner in the hallway of the Family Court building and physically blocked the petitioner’s car from exiting the parking lot of the Family Court, engaged in threatening behavior that recklessly created a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm (see Penal Law § 240.20…… . Matter of Banks v Opoku, 2013 NY slip Op 05568, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

 

,

Exclusion of Defense Counsel’s Colleague from a Wade Hearing Deprived Defendant of His Right to a Public Trial

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, reversed a conviction finding the defendant was denied his right to a public trial. To protect the undercover officer and others, the defendant was excluded from the Wade hearing concerning the validity of the undercover officer’s identification of the defendant.  The trial court, in ordering partial closure of the courtroom, had allowed defense counsel, and colleagues of defense counsel, to be present during the hearing. During the hearing, defense counsel’s officemate was denied entry to the courtroom by the court officer stationed at the door, who had consulted with the sergeant inside the courtroom.  The First Department determined the exclusion of the defendant from the hearing was proper, but the exclusion of the attorney required reversal.  The court wrote:

Here, the undercover was the critical witness, and excluding defense counsel’s colleague from the courtroom during this time was not inconsequential. Furthermore, defense counsel explained that the excluded attorney was his officemate, with whom he had consulted about the case. The court also acknowledged that the excluded attorney had substantial experience in criminal defense cases. Although there would have been a problem even if the attorney had no such experience or connection to the case, the exclusion here was particularly troubling because defense counsel alerted the court that his colleagues might be coming, and the excluded attorney could have been of assistance to defense counsel during this critical phase of the trial … .  *  *  *

…[T]he exclusion of defense counsel’s colleague interfered with the very purpose of the requirement of a public trial. The requirement that the courtroom be open whenever possible and that closure orders be narrowly tailored “is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions” …. Excluding defense counsel’s experienced colleague, who was familiar with the case, deprived defendant of his right to have this person present to assess the undercover’s testimony, and enabled the People to present the undercover’s testimony without the salutary effects of extra scrutiny.  People v Moise, 2013 NY Slip Op 05550, 1st Dept, 8-6-13

 

,

DNA Evidence Which Excluded Defendant Was Not Enough to Warrant Vacation of Conviction, or Even a Hearing on the Motion to Vacate

Defendant was convicted of the rape of one victim and the murder of another during an incident in 1980.  Over a substantial dissent, the First Department determined that the recent DNA test results re: hairs found on the perpetrator’s hat and DNA found under the fingernails of the murder victim—results which ruled out the defendant—did not warrant vacation of defendant’s conviction pursuant to a CPL 440 motion, and did not warrant a hearing.  The First Department noted the strength of the identification evidence provided by the rape victim and the fact that only three of 18 hairs taken from the hat were tested by the defense.  The majority of the First Department wrote:

Defendant has not established that the newly discovered DNA evidence “is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to [him]” … * * *

In deciding a CPL 440.10 motion, a hearing to develop additional facts is not “invariably necessary”; rather, CPL 440.30 contemplates that a court will make an initial determination on the written submissions whether the motion can be decided without a hearing … . Here, we find that even if the reliability of the evidence is assumed, defendant still did not establish a legal basis for ordering a new trial. Accordingly, the factual disputes in this case were not material, and defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of a hearing.

The dissent wrote:

I respectfully dissent, because I believe the motion court should have granted defendant further DNA testing and held an evidentiary hearing before determining his motion under CPL 440.10.  People v Jones, 2013 NY Slip Op 05547, 1st Dept 8-6-13

 

 

Sentence for Which Merit Time Allowance Is Not Available Did Not Preclude Application for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act

The Third Department, over a dissent, declined to follow the 2nd Department in its application of CPL 440.46 (Drug Law Reform Act).   The defendant was eligible to apply for resentencing based upon his offense, but, under the sentence defendant was serving at the time of his application for resentencing, he was not entitled to a merit time allowance pursuant to the Correction Law.  The Third Department determined defendant was eligible to apply for resentencing:

Although defendant, having been sentenced pursuant to his drug offense convictions as a persistent felony offender, is serving a sentence that would preclude him from earning merit time pursuant to Correction Law § 803 (see Correction Law § 803 [1] [d] [ii]; Penal Law § 70.10 [2]), he was not convicted of an “offense for which a merit time allowance is not available” (CPL 440.46 [5] [a] [ii] [emphasis added]; see Penal Law §§ 10.00 [1]; 220.39).  This distinction is significant.  The Penal Law states:

“‘Offense’ means conduct for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or to a fine is provided by any law of this state or by any law, local law or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state, or by any order, rule or regulation of any governmental instrumentality authorized by law to adopt the same” (Penal Law § 10.00 [1]).

Defendant’s offense and his sentence are thus two separate components that we decline to conflate for purposes of depriving an otherwise eligible person of the benefits of the remedial legislation that we are tasked with interpreting here.  To the extent that the [2nd] Department held to the contrary in People v Gregory (80 AD3d 624 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 806 [2011]), we decline to follow that case.  Accordingly, we find that defendant is eligible to apply for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009, and County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion.  People v Coleman, 104851, 3rd Dept 8-1-13

 

, ,

DNA Reports Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation; Reports Admissible as Business Records

In finding DNA-profile reports generated by the City of New York’s Medical Examiner did not violate defendant’s right to confrontation, the Second Department wrote:

The reports contained no conclusions, interpretations, comparisons, or subjective analyses, and “consisted of merely machine-generated graphs” and raw data … . Accordingly, the reports were not “testimonial” in nature … .

Further, a foundation for the admission of these reports as business records was established through the testimony of an assistant director employed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York (see CPLR 4518[a]…), who also conducted the actual analysis and interpretation of the data contained in the reports at issue.  People v Fucito, 2013 NY Slip Op 05538, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

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