You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Defendant’s Being in the “General Area” Where Was Weapon Was Found and Defendant’s DNA on the Weapon Was Not Enough to Support Possession Conviction

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a weapon as against the weight of the evidence.  The evidence demonstrated that the defendant was in the general area where the gun was found and the defendant could not be excluded from the mixed DNA found on the gun.  The court wrote:

No one saw defendant with the gun, he was just near where it was found and his DNA was on it. The officer testified that defendant was 20 to 30 feet past the house, whereas Fox [defendant’s companion] was off his bicycle and appeared to be doing something near the house. The officer further testified that he found the gun in front of that house, and vaguely stated that defendant  was  in “the general area” where the gun was found. This does not prove that defendant possessed the gun on Sheridan Avenue at that time. Based  on  the  testimony  of the  officer and  the  forensic scientist, it is possible that Fox – who  the officer had seen directly in front of the house – could have had the gun and left it on the ground at that time, and defendant’s DNA could have been there from handling  it previously (which  may  prove  that defendant handled the  gun at some  point, but not  at the date and time alleged in the  indictment) or through  secondary  transfer (i.e., if Fox  touched defendant  and  then  the  gun,  transferring some  of defendant’s DNA onto the gun). Because this scenario is equally likely to have occurred, we cannot say that the weight of the evidence supports the verdict finding defendant guilty  ….  People v Graham, 104177, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

County Court’s Jurisdiction Over Crimes Committed in Other Counties, Among Many Other Issues, Explained

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, the Third Department affirmed the conviction of the director of facilities for the Schenectady City School District for arson, criminal possession of a weapon, criminal mischief and other offenses.  Among the issues (all resolved against the defendant) addressed in substantive discussions: (1) whether Schenectady County Court had jurisdiction over the counts of the indictment which were alleged to have occurred in other counties; (2) whether the jurisdictional facts were sufficiently alleged and proven; (3) severance of counts; (4) suppression of evidence found in a briefcase in an area for which a search warrant had been issued; (5) whether questions amounted to impermissible interrogation; (6) the admission of Molineux evidence; (7) whether testimony relating to non-testifying chemist’s findings in a report was a Crawford violation (a violation of the right of confrontation); (8) and the admissibility of demonstrative evidence.  With respect to the jurisdiction issue, the court wrote:

…[I]n order for prosecutorial jurisdiction to lie in Schenectady County for the extraterritorial crimes, defendant’s conduct must have “had, or was likely to have, a particular effect upon [the] [C]ounty . . . or part thereof, and [have been] performed with intent that it would, or with knowledge that it was likely to, have such particular effect therein” ….To that end criminal conduct has a “particular effect” upon a county when the consequences thereof “have a materially harmful impact upon the governmental processes or community welfare” of that county (CPL 20.10 [4]) such that the defendant’s out-of-county conduct “expose[s] a large number of county residents to a specific harm”… .In this regard, the injury alleged must  be  “concrete and  identifiable” and of the type that can be demonstrated by proof… .  The People bear the burden of proving  that venue is proper by a preponderance of the evidence, and whether the subject county has geographic jurisdiction over each of the charged offenses presents a factual issue for the jury to resolve … .  People v Raucci, 103996, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

Grand Jury Proceeding Not Tainted by Excused Juror’s Statements About Having Arrested and Having Been Threatened by Defendant

The Third Department reversed County Court’s dismissal of indictments based upon a finding the integrity of the grand jury had been impaired.  A potential grand juror was excluded after stating he had arrested the defendant at least once and the defendant had threatened his family.  The Third Department wrote:

The prosecutor immediately excused this juror and instructed the remaining grand jurors to disregard and ignore the comment and to base their deliberations solely on the evidence provided by the sworn witnesses. While County Court found the prosecutor’s efforts in that regard to be inadequate, “the grand jury is presumed to have followed the prosecutor’s curative instructions, dispelling any prejudice to [] defendant”….  Furthermore, given the strength of the evidence supporting the indictments, the grand juror’s comment lacked the potential to prejudice the grand jury’s ultimate decision….   Accordingly, dismissal of the indictments was unwarranted.  People v Farley, 103105, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

Resentencing (Re: Postrelease Supervision) of Defendants Who Have Completed Determinate Sentence But Are Still Serving Aggregate Sentence Does Not Violate Double Jeopardy

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals determined defendants who have completed the determinate sentence for which mandatory postrelease supervision was not imposed but have not completed their aggregated sentences under Penal Law 70.30 can be resentenced to postrelease supervision without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause:

In these unrelated cases, each defendant claims that the imposition of mandatory postrelease supervision (PRS) to his determinate sentence at resentencing violates the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause of the federal constitution. Defendants claim that they have completed their determinate sentences, therefore imposition of PRS violates the prohibition against multiple punishments. We conclude that the respective resentences do not constitute violations of the Double Jeopardy clause because defendants do not have a legitimate expectation of finality until they have completed their aggregated sentences under Penal Law § 70.30.  People v Brinson… Nos 135, 136, CtApp 6-26-13

 

, , ,

Article 78 Petition in Nature of Prohibition Against Judge and District Attorney Granted

The Second Department explained the criteria for an Article 78 action (against a judge and district attorney) in the nature of prohibition.  In this case Supreme Court had ordered defendant to appear for resentencing after the Appellate Division had ruled without remitting the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings.  The Second Department granted the petition and prohibited the resentencing:

The remedy of prohibition generally lies when a court or an officer acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction or exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction (see CPLR 7803[2];…). To warrant the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, it is not enough that the court made a mere legal error. Rather, the court’s error must implicate its very powers and thereby be subject to correction by prohibition….  Matter of Dow v Tomei, 2013 NY Slip Op 04799, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

Motion for Resentencing Under CPL 440.46 (Drug Reform Law) Properly Denied

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46:

When a defendant is eligible for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46, there is ” a presumption in favor of granting a motion for resentencing relief absent a showing that substantial justice dictates the denial thereof'”…. “However, resentencing is not automatic, and the determination is left to the discretion of the Supreme Court”…. In exercising its discretion, a court may “consider any facts or circumstances relevant to the imposition of a new sentence which are submitted by [the defendant] or the people” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23), including the defendant’s institutional record of confinement, the defendant’s prior criminal history, the severity of the current offense, whether the defendant has shown remorse, and whether the defendant has a history of parole or probation violations…. Relevant considerations include the defendant’s status as a probation or parole violator as a consequence of the conviction for which resentencing is sought…, and the defendant’s conviction of a violent felony subsequent to the commission of the narcotics felony for which resentencing is sought…. People v Parker, 2013 NY Slip Op 04831, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

Plea Colloquy Raised Concerns Requiring Further Inquiry Re: Defendant’s Mental Health

The Second Department determined that defendant’s plea colloquy raised concern about defendant’s mental health requiring inquiry by the sentencing court:

Here, in light of the defendant’s known history of mental illness, and the finding within six days after commission of the instant sex offense that the defendant was suffering from psychotic symptoms attributable to bipolar disorder, for which he required hospitalization, certain statements made during the defendant’s plea allocution—specifically, statements regarding the complainant’s impression that, at the time of incident, the defendant was “very very much mentally unwell”—“signaled that [the defendant] may have been suffering from a mental disease or defect” when the offense was committed, thereby triggering the Supreme Court’s duty to inquire…. The trial court’s failure to conduct any inquiry as to a potential affirmative defense to the charges based upon mental disease or defect (see Penal Law 40.15), requires vacatur of the defendant’s plea of guilty…. While the People are correct that the defendant’s argument is unpreserved for appellate review, preservation is not required where, as here, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant’s guilt and the voluntariness of the plea were called into question before the court….  People v Grason, 2013 NY Slip Op 04827, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

,

No Standing to Contest Search of Guest Room

The Court of Appeals determined there was support in the record for the trial court’s finding that defendant did not have standing to contest the search of a room in his grandmother’s house where a weapon was found:

The judge credited the grandmother’s testimony that the bedroom where the gun was found was an extra or guest bedroom; and that defendant had a separate room and did not stay in the guest bedroom. Given these facts, Supreme Court held that defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in “a room that wasn’t his, that was used by several other people.”  People v Leach, No 130, CtApp 6-25-13

SUPPRESSION

 

, , , ,

Defendant May Not Be Cross-Examined About Criminal Conviction on Direct Appeal

In reversing defendant’s assault conviction, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined a defendant with a conviction pending appeal may not be cross-examined about the underlying facts of that conviction until direct appeal has been exhausted.  Judge Lippman wrote:

At trial, the defense was justification and defendant planned to testify, but the People received permission, after a Sandoval hearing, to cross-examine him about his recent rape conviction, still pending on direct appeal, as well as the underlying facts, and the sentence he received. After the People rested, defense counsel asked the court to reconsider the Sandoval ruling, objecting that an appeal of the rape conviction was pending and, therefore, cross-examination about the conviction and its underlying facts would violate defendant’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, but the court adhered to its ruling. Defendant did not testify and was convicted of third-degree assault. Subsequently, his conviction for rape was reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel, his prior attorney having failed to impeach the complainant with exculpatory hospital records…. Defendant was retried and acquitted.  * * *

…[I]n ruling that the prosecution could cross-examine defendant about the underlying facts of his rape conviction, presumably the court was not implying that defendant could not assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to those questions. However, “taking the Fifth,” is highly prejudicial as to both the instant case and the conviction pending appeal. To a jury, it appears as though defendant is admitting the truth of the leading questions posed by the prosecutor; “[i]t exerts an undeniable chilling effect upon a real ‘choice’ whether to testify in one’s own behalf” …. More problematic, defendant must invoke the Fifth Amendment as to both exculpatory and inculpatory questions to protect himself; otherwise he might waive the privilege… .  People v Cantave, No 129, CtApp 6-25-13

 

,

Illegal Arrest Did Not Taint Identification Procedure – Attentuation Doctrine Applied

Over a dissent, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that the defendant’s identification in a line-up, after an admittedly illegal arrest, was not tainted by the arrest under the doctrine of “attenuation.”  The operative legal principles were described as follows:

The sergeant’s initial arrest of defendant was without probable cause and therefore illegal. But evidence discovered subsequent to an illegal arrest is not indiscriminately subject to the exclusionary rule…. Instead, the People “must have ‘somehow exploited or benefitted from [the] illegal conduct’ such that ‘there is a connection between the violation of a constitutional right and the derivative evidence’ obtained by the police”….

Defendant claims that the lineup identification must be suppressed because it was the product of an illegal arrest. In order to counter that challenge, the People were required to demonstrate that the identification was “acquired by means sufficiently distinguishable from the arrest to be purged of the illegality” …, i.e., that the taint of the illegal arrest was “attenuated” …. In order to determine whether attenuation exists, the court must “consider the temporal proximity of the arrest and [the evidence at issue], the presence of intervening circumstances and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct”…. *  *  *

By the time the sergeant effected the illegal arrest, the detective already had in his possession sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for defendant’s arrest. People v Jones, No 125, CtApp 6-25-13

 

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