You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Beating of Child Combined with Two-Hour Delay in Seeking Help Constituted Depraved Indifference

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott which addressed both the proof requirements for depraved indifference murder and ineffective assistance of counsel, determined that the brutal beating of a 15-month-old baby combined with the failure to summon assistance for 2 hours met the criteria for depraved indifference to human life.  The Court found that the facts proved a brutal course of conduct over a prolonged or extended period of time.  In explaining the operative principles, Judge Pigott wrote:

This appeal is governed by the requirement that, in proving the existence of “circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,” the People must show that, at the time the crime occurred, defendant had a mens rea of “utter disregard for the value of human life” …. Put simply, the People must prove that defendant did not care whether his victim lived or died … . Additionally, the People must prove a second mens rea, namely recklessness. * * *

A brutal course of conduct against a vulnerable victim occurring over a prolonged or extended period of time is more likely to be associated with the mental state of depraved indifference to human life than brutality that is short in duration and is not repeated. This is because the actor had the opportunity to regret his actions and display caring, but failed to take the opportunity. In the present case, defendant argues that his course of conduct against the child was not prolonged. But defendant’s argument focuses exclusively on the duration of his physical assault on the child, which may have been brief. However, this argument ignores the evidence that, by his later inaction “ his failure, over some two hours, to seek medical attention for the child “ defendant turned a brutal assault into a brutal and prolonged course of conduct against a vulnerable victim.  People v Barboni, 102, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

,

Conviction for Selling T-Shirts without a Vendor’s License Upheld—Constitutional Expression vs. Commercial Enterprise

The defendant was convicted of “unlicensed general vending” for selling t-shirts in New York City without a vendor’s license. In his defense the defendant argued that the vending of t-shirts with artistic images on them was constitutionally protected expression. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the determination below that the purpose of the sale was primarily utilitarian as opposed to expressive.  Judge Smith dissented because the t-shirts had been destroyed and the Court could not determine their expressive nature.  In describing the appropriate analysis as explained in a Second Circuit case, the Court of Appeals wrote:

…[T]he Second Circuit found that the relevant inquiry is whether the vendor is “genuinely and primarily engaged in artistic self-expression or whether the sale of such goods is instead a chiefly commercial exercise” … . The Court recognized that certain items, including apparel, could simultaneously contain potentially expressive and non-expressive components and, in that situation, a reviewing court must determine which purpose — expression or utility — is dominant… .  People v Lam, 95, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

Parole Violation Did Not Preclude Application for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act

The Fourth Department determined County Court erred when it denied defendant’s application for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act on the ground defendant was a reincarcerated parole violator.  Nor did it matter that defendant was released from parole supervision after he made the application.  People v Saffold, 666, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

,

People Did Not Meet Burden of Going Forward at Suppression Hearing

The Fourth Department determined the People did not meet their “burden of going forward” at the suppression hearing and suppressed the evidence seized from the defendant.  After an anonymous call describing a person who looked nothing at all like the defendant, the police approached, detained and searched the defendant:

The officer who approached defendant testified at the suppression hearing that he asked defendant to step away from a group of individuals with whom defendant was socializing.  The officer escorted defendant to the curb while physically holding defendant’s waistband, and he instructed defendant to face the street and to place his hands on the roof of a civilian vehicle.  The officer testified that at that time defendant was not free to leave.  Having detained defendant in that manner, the officer then explained to defendant the reason for the police presence.  The officer asked defendant if he had any contraband and if defendant would consent to a search of his person.  Defendant consented to the search, during which the police obtained the physical evidence sought to be suppressed.  In light of the fact that defendant was illegally detained, i.e., without a reasonable suspicion that he was committing or had committed a crime (see CPL 140.50 [1]), his consent to the search immediately thereafter cannot be considered voluntary ….

Although “ ‘a defendant who challenges the legality of a search and seizure has the burden of proving illegality, the People are nevertheless put to the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance’ ” ….  We agree with defendant that the People failed to meet that burden.  People v Noah, 414, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

Conviction Reversed Because Uncharged Theory Considered by Jury

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction for criminal impersonation because the jury was allowed to consider a theory of prosecution that was not charged:

…[T]he court’s jury instructions with respect to the crime of criminal impersonation in the first degree permitted the jury to convict him upon a theory not charged in the indictment, and thus violated his right to be tried for only those crimes charged in the indictment, as limited by the bill of particulars …. …[W]e address defendant’s contention despite his failure to preserve it for our review … . The fifth count of the indictment alleged that defendant committed the crime of criminal impersonation when he pretended to be a police officer and, “in the course of such pretense, committed or attempted to commit the felony of [r]ape in the first degree.”    The court’s instructions, however, permitted the jury to convict defendant upon finding that he committed any felony in the course of pretending to be a police officer, thus allowing the jury to convict defendant upon a theory not charged in the indictment.  People v Williams, 340, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

,

Failure to Prove Defendant Did Not Have a Good Faith Belief He Had a Claim of Right to Property Precluded Larceny Conviction

The Fourth Department determined there was insufficient evidence to support a grand larceny charge based upon the defendant’s taking a jeep from his girlfriend’s residence.  Prior to defendant’s taking the jeep, his girlfriend had agreed to transfer it to him—an offer she subsequently told defendant was “off:” The Fourth Department held the People had not proven the defendant did not have a good faith belief that he had a claim of right to the jeep:

It is well established that “a good faith claim of right is properly a defense—not an affirmative defense—and thus, ‘the people have the burden of disproving such defense beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” … .A defendant is not required to “establish that he previously owned or possessed the property at issue in order to assert the claim of right defense” …. The test is whether a defendant had a “subjective[,] good faith” belief that he or she had a claim of right to the relevant property, not whether defendant’s belief was reasonable … . Based on the testimony of defendant’s former girlfriend, which is the only evidence that relates to the claim of right issue, we conclude that it was unreasonable for the jury to conclude that the People established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not have a subjective, good faith basis for believing that the Jeep was his, and thus the verdict with respect to the grand larceny in the fourth degree count is against the weight of the evidence ….  People v Rios, 223, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

,

Substitute Judge Can Rule on Motion Argued Before Another Judge

The full-fledged opinion by Judge Read was succinctly summarized by the Court of Appeals as follows:

We hold that Judiciary Law § 21 does not bar a substitute judge from deciding a question of law presented in a motion argued orally before another judge so long as a transcript or recording of the prior argument is available for review, and “the substitute indicates on the record the requisite familiarity with the proceedings and no undue prejudice occurs to the defendant or the People” …. Put another way, section 21 does not mandate a mistrial or that the pending motion be re-argued orally in front of the substitute judge. People v Hampton, No 92, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

,

SORA Court’s Failure to Issue Written Findings Required Remittal

The Third Department remitted a SORA proceeding because the court did not set forth in its written order its findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to defendant’s application for a downward departure and the oral findings were not sufficiently detailed for adequate review.  People v Filkins, 514025, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

,

Pat-Down Search After Stop for Traffic Infractions Okay

The Third Department determined the police officer [Negron] properly asked defendant to get out of his car, and properly conducted a pat-down search, after a vehicle-stop for traffic infractions:

…[O]fficers may exercise their discretion to require occupants to exit a vehicle once a lawful traffic stop has been effected, out of a concern for safety and without particularized suspicion….  Furthermore, a pat-down search of a suspect’s outer clothing is reasonable and constitutionally permissible when  an officer observes facts and circumstances that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person is armed or poses a threat to his or her safety… .

Here, the entire encounter took place after dark in an area to which Negron had frequently responded to reports of gang activity, drug sales, fights and  shootings. Negron testified that he was familiar with defendant from his prior criminal activity and that defendant had been violent toward police in the past and had twice been charged with resisting arrest. After defendant exited the vehicle, Negron noticed bulges in the pockets in defendant’s “grabbable” area, which Negron defined as the hot zone that defendant’s hands could access quickly from their normal resting position. Defendant subsequently declined to answer the question as to whether he was in possession of any weapons or drugs, prompting Negron to conduct the pat frisk that ultimately revealed a concealed handgun. Thus, considering the circumstances in their totality, we find that the officer possessed a reasonable basis to perform a pat-down search of defendant for the presence of weapons… .  People v Issac, 104854, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

SUPPRESSION

 

,

Court’s Failure to Inquire About Potential Conflict of Interest and Failure to Follow Statutory Procedure for Jury Note Did Not Require Reversal

The Third Department determined the trial court’s failure to directly inquire into defendant’s awareness of the risks associated with his attorney’s potential conflict of interest and the trial court’s failure to follow the statutory procedure with respect to a note from the jury during deliberations did not require reversal:

Early in these proceedings, defendant’s trial counsel informed County Court of a potential conflict of interest based upon the prior representation of a prosecution witness by another attorney in counsel’s law firm. Although counsel informed the court that defendant had no objection, County Court erred by failing to directly inquire into defendant’s awareness of the potential risks and  his willingness to waive any  potential conflict … . * * *

While the better practice would  have  been  for County  Court to read the note on the record prior to responding to it and we do not condone the court’s curtailment of counsel’s argument, the record reflects that counsel was aware  of the specific content of the note and  we  are satisfied that counsel had  a full opportunity to explain his position as to the meaning  of “duly served.”  Under  these circumstances, defense counsel can be  said to have meaningfully participated in the response to the note… .  People v Cooper, 104749, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

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