You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Evidence Needed to Corroborate Accomplice Testimony and Evidence Admissible at Restitution Hearing Explained

In affirming the conviction, the Fourth Department explained the criteria for corroboration of accomplice testimony, and the admissible evidence in a restitution hearing:

“New York’s accomplice corroboration protection requires only enough nonaccomplice evidence to assure that the accomplices have offered credible probative evidence that connects the accomplice evidence to the defendant”…. Even the most “[s]eemingly insignificant matters may harmonize with the accomplice’s narrative so as to provide the necessary corroboration” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).    Here, defendant’s accomplice testified that he assisted defendant in burglarizing the victim’s home and stealing the victim’s car, and that testimony was corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses that defendant was seen driving the victim’s stolen car the day after the burglary.* * *

The victim testified at the restitution hearing and provided a detailed breakdown of the value of the stolen items as well as documents establishing the cost of replacing the ignition and locks on her vehicle, which was returned to her. In addition, the amount of restitution owed to the victim’s insurance company, which was financially harmed by reimbursing the victim for a portion of the cost of changing the ignition and locks on her vehicle, was supported by the claim it submitted to the Genesee County Probation Department. It is immaterial that an employee of the insurance company did not testify at the restitution hearing because “[a]ny relevant evidence, not legally privileged, may be received [at a restitution hearing] regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence” (CPL 400.30 [4] …). People v Wilson, 275, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Participation in Program Can Be Delayed Until Close to Release Date

In affirming Supreme Court, in the face to the inmate’s request that he be placed in the sex offender counseling and treatment program (SOCTP) in 2015, the Third Department determined  the inmate’s participation in the program could be delayed until 2023, 36 months before his conditional release date:

An inmate’s evaluation by a case review team  under  Mental  Hygiene  Law  §  10.05 is triggered by notice to the Office of Mental  Health that the inmate  is “nearing anticipated release,” which is to be provided at least 120 days prior to such  “anticipated release” (Mental Hygiene  Law  §  10.05 [b]). In accordance with the foregoing, DOCCS has developed guidelines for administering sex offender treatment programs throughout the state. The guidelines recognize the need to allocate limited resources and provide that inmates shall be placed in sex offender treatment programs “as they get closer to their release date.”  Matter of Wakefield, 515002, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

Parole Board Should Have Used Risk Assessment Instrument

The Third Department determined an inmate was entitled to a new hearing on his request for discretionary parole release because the Board did not use the required written procedure for risk assessment:

[The inmate argued] the Board improperly failed to utilize a “COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment” instrument in connection with the relevant amendments to Executive Law § 259-c (4), which became effective October 1, 2011 (see L 2011, ch 62, § 49 [f]). Significantly, Executive Law § 259-c (4) requires that the Board “establish written procedures for its use in making parole decisions as required by law,” and the Board acknowledges  that the statute requires it to incorporate risk and needs principles into its decision-making process. According to the record, the Board was trained in the use of the COMPAS instrument prior to petitioner’s hearing. Moreover, the Board acknowledges that it has used the COMPAS instrument since February 2012 and will use it for petitioner’s next appearance. Under these circumstances, we find no justification for the Board’s failure to use the COMPAS instrument at petitioner’s October  2011  hearing. Matter of Garfield, 515986, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

, ,

Right of Confrontation Not Violated by Results of Tests by Persons Who Were Not Called as Witnesses

In determining defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated by evidence of DNA testing:

The court properly admitted files prepared by the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office containing DNA profiles derived from the testing of evidence recovered from the crime scenes, since the documents containing the DNA profiles, which were prepared prior to the defendant’s arrest, “did not, standing alone, link [him] to the crime” …. The testimony of the People’s expert witness established that she conducted the critical analysis at issue by comparing the DNA profiles derived from the crime scene evidence to the defendant’s DNA profile and concluding that all of the profiles matched…. Moreover, the DNA profile generated from the swab of the defendant’s cheek, standing alone, shed no light on the issue of the defendant’s guilt in the absence of the expert’s testimony that it matched the profiles derived from the crime scene evidence….  People v Washington, 2013 NY Slip Op 05096, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY

 

,

Evidence of Pornography Allowed as Molineux Evidence to Show Intent

In affirming the defendant’s conviction for sexual offenses against a young child, the Third Department determined the trial court properly allowed “Molineux” evidence about pornography found on and/or searched for on defendant’s computer. Among the reasons for letting the evidence of pornography in evidence was to demonstrate defendant’s intent.  The Third Department wrote:

While  intent can  often be inferred from the sexual act itself…, here, defendant claimed to the police investigator and the CPS caseworker that much  of the sexual contact and the child’s knowledge occurred accidentally. The foregoing  was,  thus, admissible  to  prove  that defendant’s  charged  sexual contact  was not accidental or mistaken but, rather, was intentional and sexual … and motivated by his unusual sexual interest in young children. Supreme Court carefully considered  the  prejudicial  effect  of  the  evidence, limited or excluded much  of it, including the actual images and videos, and provided numerous contemporaneous and appropriate limiting  instructions. We  cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in finding that the  probative  value  of the admitted evidence outweighed the potential for undue prejudice… People v Sorrell, 103426, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

Jury Was Given Written Copies of Portions of Jury Instructions; Judge’s Responses to Subsequent Requests for Jury Instructions and Testimony Read-Back Required Reversal

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction on two grounds.  First, the trial judge’s response to the jury’s request for jury instructions (written copies of portions of the jury instructions had already been given to the jury) was not “meaningful” and required reversal in the absence of an objection.  And second, the read-back of testimony requested by the jury did not match the request and did not include crucial cross-examination:

As it was unclear from the jury’s note whether the jury simply was seeking the portion of the written charge previously promised by County Court or some other unidentified portion of the charge  (or even  the  charge  in its entirety), it was  incumbent upon County Court to explore this inquiry with the jury and clarify the  nature of the  jury’s request or, at the  very least, ascertain whether its response to the jury’s request was satisfactory….Although defense counsel did not object to the manner in which County Court  responded  to the  jury’s inquiry, County  Court  failed “to provide  a  meaningful response  to the  jury” and, in so  doing, failed to fulfill its “core responsibility” in this regard  ….    Accordingly, no objection was required to preserve this issue for appellate review… . * * *

Although CPL 310.30 affords a trial court a certain degree of latitude in responding to a jury request for additional information, the court’s response must be meaningful … . Additionally, “[a] request for a reading of testimony generally is presumed to include cross-examination which impeaches the testimony to be read back, and any such testimony should be read to the jury unless the jury indicates otherwise”… .  People v Clark, 105237, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

, ,

Writ of Coram Nobis Granted—Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

The Second Department granted defendant’s writ of coram nobis to vacate (dismissing the indictment), on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.  Among the grounds for appeal not raised were: repugnant verdicts, erroneous and missing jury charges (including the statutory elements), failure to give a limiting charge with respect to evidence of defendant’s prior criminal record, and prosecutorial misconduct.  People v Morales, 2013 NY Slip Op 05094, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

, ,

Judge’s Mistrial Order Precluded Retrial—Double Jeopardy

In precluding a retrial on double jeopardy grounds after the trial judge ordered a mistrial over defendant’s objection (granting the Article 78 prohibition petition), the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

In a jury trial, once the jury is empaneled and sworn, jeopardy attaches (see CPL 40.30[1][b];..), and the defendant has a “valued right to have his [or her] trial completed by a particular tribunal” ….  ” [W]hen a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, double jeopardy will, as a general rule, bar retrial'”…. “However, the right to have one’s case decided by the first empaneled jury is not absolute, and a mistrial granted as the product of manifest necessity will not bar a retrial”… .”Manifest necessity” means “a high degree of necessity”; “the reasons underlying the grant of a mistrial must be necessitous, actual and substantial” …. ” Even if the reasons for granting a mistrial are deemed actual and substantial, the court must explore all appropriate alternatives prior to granting a mistrial'”…. Mistrials premised on the prejudicial effect of improper evidence or argument are entitled to “great deference” …, since “the Trial Judge, better than any other, . . . can detect the ambience of partiality”…. Nonetheless, the trial judge must “temper the decision whether or not to abort the trial by considering the importance to the defendant of being able, once and for all, to conclude his [or her] confrontation with society through the verdict of a tribunal he [or she] might believe to be favorably disposed to his [or her] fate” … . Matter of Taylor v Dowling, 2013 NY Slip Op 05089, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Prima Facie Case of Family Offenses Not Established (Forcible Touching and Sexual Abuse)

The Second Department found that Family Court properly determined mother failed to establish a prima facie case of the family offense of forcible touching and sexual abuse and properly ruled hearsay inadmissible:

The mother presented no direct evidence that the father touched the child “for the purpose of degrading or abusing” the child or “gratifying [his] sexual desire” (Penal Law § 130.52; see Penal Law §§ 130.00[3]; 130.55;…. Furthermore, although, in some instances, the element of intent may be inferred from the nature of the acts committed and the circumstances in which they occurred…, an intent to gratify sexual desire on the part of the father cannot be inferred from the totality of the circumstances here…. * * *

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court properly refused to permit her to admit hearsay testimony pursuant to Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi). That section, by its own terms, is limited to a “hearing under . . . article [10] and article ten-A” of the Family Court Act (Family Ct Act § 1046[a]), and although the hearsay exception contained in Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) has been applied in the context of custody proceedings commenced pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6 where the basis of the custody proceeding is founded on neglect or abuse such that the issues are “inextricably interwoven”…, the Family Court properly refused to apply Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) in this case…. Matter of Khan-Soleil v Rashad, 2014 NY Slip Op 05074, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Elements of Tampering with Physical Evidence

The First Department explained the elements of the offense of tampering with physical evidence as follows:

…[A] person is guilty of the completed crime of tampering with physical evidence when, “[b]elieving that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment” (Penal Law 215.45[2]).

The offense of tampering does not require the actual suppression of physical evidence, but only that a defendant perform an act of concealment while intending to suppress the evidence…. Regardless of whether the defendant is successful in suppressing the evidence, once an act of concealment is completed with the requisite mens rea, the offense of tampering has been committed.  People v Eaglesgrave, 2013 NY Slip Op 05001, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

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