You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Depraved Indifference Murder of Child Count Should Not Have Been Dismissed Based On the Grand Jury Evidence In Spite of Difficulty of Proving the Count at Trial

The Third Department determined the trial court should not have dismissed the count of the indictment which charged defendant with depraved indifference murder of a child.  While acknowledging the prosecution may have difficulty proving the charge at trial, the court determined that a logical inference from the grand-jury proof was that the injuries defendant inflicted on the child were immediately and obviously very serious and defendant callously delayed getting help while minimizing his conduct and the seriousness of the injuries.  In explaining the general criteria for the sufficiency of grand jury evidence, the court wrote:

In reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment, courts view the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and determine only whether the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient … . “In the context of grand jury proceedings, ‘legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt’… .  “The reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes” … .  “[I]f the prosecutor has established a prima facie case, the evidence is legally sufficient even though its quality or weight may be so dubious as to preclude indictment or conviction pursuant to other requirements” … .  People v Waite, 105416, 3rd Dept 7-25-13

 

,

Defendant’s Statements Made in Pre-Trial Plea Negotiations Should Not Have Been Admitted at Trial

The Second Department determined the prosecutor should not have been allowed to introduce at trial statements made by the defendant in plea negotiations (the error was deemed harmless however):

The defendant and the People executed an agreement, whereby they agreed that the People could introduce those statements against the defendant at a trial, inter alia, “to rebut any evidence” offered by him or on his behalf. At the trial, the Supreme Court found that the defendant had triggered this provision of the agreement and permitted the People to introduce the subject statements.

Statements made during the course of plea negotiations can be used against a defendant only if the People specifically bargained for that…. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improperly found that the defendant’s trial attorney offered evidence and raised factual issues which triggered the agreement… .  People v Thompson, 2013 NY Slip Op 05473, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

, ,

Padilla v Kentucky, Which Held Attorney’s Failure to Inform Client of Immigration Consequences of Plea Was Ineffective Assistance, Not Applied Retroactively Under New York Constitution

The Second Department determined Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356, which held an attorney’s failure to inform his or her client of the immigration consequences of a plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, should not be applied retroactively under the New York Constitution:

In People v Pepper (53 NY2d 213, cert denied sub nom. New York v Utter, 454 US 1162), the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a new rule should be retroactively applied under the New York Constitution. It recognized three factors a court should weigh to determine whether to retroactively apply a new rule: (1) the purpose to be served by the new standard, (2) the extent to which law enforcement authorities relied upon the old standard, and (3) the effect a retroactive application of the new standard would have on the administration of justice (see id. at 220). The Court of Appeals explained that “the extent of the reliance and the nature of the burden on the administration of justice are of substantial significance only when the answer to the retroactivity question is not to be found in the purpose of the new rule itself” (id.). Thus, a new rule that goes “to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence” will be retroactively applied “where otherwise there could be a complete miscarriage of justice” (id. at 221). However, a new rule which is “only collateral to or relatively far removed from the fact-finding process at trial” (id.), will have only prospective application. Although the Supreme Court in Padilla held that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to inform their clients whether a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation, this new rule, rather than going to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence, instead concentrates on the defendant’s appreciation of the immigration consequences that may flow from an otherwise proper plea allocution … .

Retroactive application of Padilla is also not warranted under the second and third Pepper factors. With regard to law enforcement reliance, prior to Padilla, a defendant could prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim only if it was established that counsel rendered incorrect advice regarding the immigration consequences of the guilty plea and that the defendant was prejudiced thereby … . The failure to advise a defendant of the possibility of deportation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel …, and such failure to advise did not “affect the voluntariness of a plea of guilty or the validity of a conviction” (CPL 220.50[7]). Thus, under the old standard, prosecutors could recommend acceptance of plea allocutions even where the defendant had not been advised of the immigration consequences of entering into the plea …. As to the third factor, retroactive application of the Padilla rule would potentially lead to an influx of CPL 440.10 motions to vacate the convictions of defendants whose guilty pleas were properly entered and accepted by courts under the old standard …, thus adversely affecting the criminal justice system. Accordingly, we further find that under New York law, the Padilla rule should not be retroactively applied to cases like this one where the convictions became final prior to March 31, 2010, the date Padilla was decided.  People v Andrews, 2013 NY Slip Op 05469, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

,

Family Offense of Disorderly Conduct Not Proven—No Proof of Public Inconvenience, Annoyance, or Alarm

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Skelos, the Second Department determined the wife’s allegations against her husband did not demonstrate the family offense of disorderly conduct.  The wife alleged the husband tried to push her down stairs, twisted her arm and pushed her against a wall. Under the Penal Law, disorderly conduct requires an intent to cause or the reckless creation of a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.  However, Family Court Act section 812 provides: “For purposes of this article, disorderly conduct included disorderly conduct not in a public place.”  The Second Department determined that, even in the context of a family offense proceeding, the “public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm” element must be proven:

We … hold that, even where the conduct at issue is alleged to have occurred in a private residence, in order for a petitioner to meet his or her burden of establishing the family offense of disorderly conduct, there must be a prima facie showing that the conduct was either intended to cause, or recklessly created a risk of causing, public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. The intent to cause, or recklessness in causing, public harm, is the mens rea of the offense of disorderly conduct … . The plain language of the subject provision of Family Court Act § 812, in contrast, provides only that the conduct need not occur in a public place (see Family Ct Act § 812). The plain language of Family Court Act § 812 therefore pertains only to the actus reus of the offense—specifically, the place where it is committed—and does not speak to the mens rea of the offense. Indeed, since Family Court Act § 812 does not specify an alternative culpable mental state, if the mens rea provided for in the Penal Law were not applicable in family offense proceedings, it is unclear what the mens rea of this family offense would be. * * *

One can certainly contemplate conduct occurring in a private residence that is intended to cause, or evinces a reckless disregard of causing, public harm. Such conduct might include, for example, a loud fight, or a loud argument with disturbing content, occurring in an apartment building late at night, or under other circumstances where the public may reasonably be expected to hear or see the altercation. As the Court of Appeals has observed, “the risk of public disorder does not have to be realized,” in order to infer that an individual intended to cause, or recklessly disregarded the risk of causing, such a threat… . Matter of  Cassie v Cassie, 2013 NY Slip Op 05446, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

,

40 Month Pre-Trial Delay Did Not Violate Due Process

In determining a 40-month delay did not deprive defendant his right to due process, the Fourth Department wrote:

In determining whether there has been an undue delay, a court must consider several factors, including “ ‘(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay’ ” (People v Decker, 13 NY3d 12, 15, quoting People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445…).

Upon applying the Taranovich factors to the facts before us, we conclude that the delay did not deprive defendant of his right to due process.  We agree with defendant that the rape in the first degree charge “can only be described as serious” … .  Conversely, although the 40-month delay in commencing the prosecution was substantial, it was not per se unreasonable ….  Furthermore, defendant was not incarcerated for an extended period prior to the trial on these charges, and there is no evidence that defendant was prejudiced by the delay in commencing the prosecution.  Finally, the reason for the delay in this case was the police detective’s inability to fully identify and locate defendant.  That excuse was not unreasonable inasmuch as the victim was unable to identify defendant from mug shots or otherwise ascertain which of the 32 men in the Buffalo Police Department’s identification system with defendant’s name was the perpetrator. People v White, 817, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

,

Insufficient Evidence of History of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in SORA Proceeding

The Fourth Department determined there was insufficient evidence in a SORA proceeding to find defendant had a history of alcohol and drug abuse.  The case summary stated that “Probation identified [defendant’s] continued drug and alcohol abuse as problematic, and he refused to attend treatment for th[at] problem.”  The Court wrote:

There is …no evidence that defendant was ever screened for substance abuse issues …, “only very limited information about his alleged prior history of drug and alcohol abuse” …, and no information about what treatment was recommended or why treatment was recommended ….  Under these circumstances, the case summary alone is insufficient “to satisfy the People’s burden of establishing that risk factor by clear and convincing evidence” ….

Further, defendant’s prior convictions for criminal possession and sale of marihuana and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree do not constitute clear and convincing evidence that defendant used drugs, let alone that he had a history of abusing them … .  During the presentence investigation, defendant never admitted to using drugs or alcohol, and he denied abusing any substances at the SORA hearing … Defendant’s admission that he was intoxicated during a previous incident, which led to a rape charge that was subsequently dismissed, is insufficient to establish that his sexual misconduct can “be characterized by repetitive and compulsive behavior[] associated with drugs or alcohol” (Correction Law § 168-l [5] [a] [ii]), especially because defendant does not have any other history of intoxication with respect to his sexual offenses, including the instant offenses ….  Consequently, as noted, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that defendant had a history of alcohol or drug abuse… .  People v Coger, 815, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

Jail Time Does Not Count Toward Subsequent Offense Until Previous Sentence Expired

Defendant was released on parole for a 2001 conviction.  While on parole he committed an offense and was jailed.  The Fourth Department determined that the time defendant was in jail must first be credited to the 2001 conviction.  Only after the 2001 sentence was completely served could any jail time be credited to the subsequent (2009) conviction:

Here, “[a]ny jail time served prior to the maximum expiration date of the [2001] sentence was properly credited toward that sentence until it expired on its own terms on [July 4, 2009] … .  “Thus, the [2009] sentence was properly credited only with jail time served after the expiration of the [2001] sentence” ….  In other words, “petitioner is not entitled to jail time credit against the [2009] sentence for the jail time that was credited against the [2001] sentence”… .  Matter of Grahm v Walsh, 811, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

Defendant’s Wearing a Stun Belt During Trial Without Knowledge of Judge Did Not Constitute a “Mode of Proceedings” Error

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s wearing of a “stun belt” during his trial (unbeknownst to the judge and to which no objection was made) did not constitute a mode of proceedings error.  The dissent argued to the contrary, characterizing the sheriff’s use of the stun belt without the court’s involvement as a usurpation of the power of the court:

County Court could not have granted defendant’s motion under CPL 440.10 (1) (f) unless the unauthorized use of the stun belt at trial constitutes a mode of proceedings error, in which case reversal would have been required on direct appeal if the use of the stun belt had been disclosed on the record … .

We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleague that the improper use of the stun belt, i.e., at the direction of the Sheriff rather than the court, constitutes a mode of proceedings error.

Indeed, we note that a mode of proceedings error occurs “[w]here the procedure adopted by the court . . . is at a basic variance with the mandate of law” …, and that is not the case here.  We further note that in Buchanan the court deferred to the Sheriff, indeed delegated to the Sheriff, the determination whether defendant should wear the stun belt after the court acknowledged that defendant had done nothing to merit it (see Buchanan, 13 NY3d at 3), but the Court of Appeals did not find the error to be a mode of proceedings error.  Instead, the Court of Appeals simply ruled that the court failed to exercise its discretion… .  People v Schrock, 800, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

,

Improper Admission of Evidence of Similar (Pending) Criminal Charge under Molineux Required Reversal

The Fourth Department determined a new trial was required where the trial court allowed the prosecution to present evidence (in its direct case) of a pending attempted robbery charge under Molineux to prove identity.  The defendant was on trial for allegedly robbing a hotel clerk in Cayuga County and the Molineux evidence involved the attempted robbery of a hotel clerk in Onondaga County.  The Molineux evidence included the testimony of five witnesses and a video of the attempted robbery.  The Fourth Department wrote:

“Before admitting evidence of other crimes to establish identity, the Trial Judge must find that both modus operandi and defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the other crimes are established by clear and convincing evidence” (Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 4–514 [Farrell 11th ed]…).  Here, the record establishes that the court ruled that the evidence of defendant’s identity with respect to the attempted robbery would be admissible as a matter of law, but did not determine the relevancy of the identification evidence of the attempted robbery, nor did it properly balance its prejudicial effect as against its probative value… .  Additionally, there is no indication in the record that the court found that the modus operandi and defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the attempted robbery were established by clear and convincing evidence.  We thus conclude that the case before the jury became a prohibited “trial within a trial”… .  We further conclude that the evidence of the attempted robbery was “sufficiently prejudicial so as to deprive defendant of a fair trial”… .  People v Larkins, 756, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

,

In SORA Proceeding, Child Pornography Properly Considered Under Factor 7 (“Relationship Between Offender and Victim”)

In affirming a SORA determination, the Fourth Department noted that the 20 point assessment under risk factor 7 (entitled “Relationship Between Offender and Victim”), based upon the defendant’s pleading guilty to receiving child pornography (a federal statute), was appropriate:

With respect to …the 20 points assessed under risk factor 7, we note that the underlying conviction was a federal offense to which defendant pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography (18 USC 2252 [a] [2]).  Although the Court of Appeals has stated that “[i]t does not seem that factor 7 was written with possessors of child pornography in mind” …, the Court of Appeals determined that points were properly assessed under risk factor 7 in a case where the defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography….  Consequently, we conclude that the court here properly assessed points under risk factor 7. People v Noyes, 687, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

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