You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Irrelevant Information in Presentence Report Should Not Have Been Allowed In “Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding

In affirming a jury finding of mental abnormality and a finding that respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, the First Department noted that the state’s expert should not have been allowed to testify about respondent’s admission in a presentence report that he was in the vicinity of a rape with which he was never charged:

The court erred in permitting the State expert to testify regarding respondent’s admission, in a presentence report, that he was in the vicinity when a rape, with which he was never charged, was committed. While this statement was sufficiently reliable to show that respondent was in the vicinity of the rape, it was not reliable for the purpose of showing that he committed the rape…. Nevertheless, this error was harmless given the expert’s reliance on two brutal sexual assaults to which respondent pleaded guilty and a third that he admitted committing, and given the court’s appropriate limiting instructions, which served to dispel any prejudice …. Matter of State of New York v Charada T, 2013 NY Slip Op 04548, 1st Dept, 6-18-13

 

,

Improper to Characterize Trial as “Search for Truth”

The Fourth Department noted that the prosecutor’s characterization of the trial as “a search for the truth” was improper (but did not warrant reversal).  People v Ward, 758, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Statute of Limitations Tolled Until Defendant Identified by DNA; Police Had “Tacit Consent” to Enter Apartment

The Fourth Department determined the statute of limitations was tolled until defendant was identified through DNA collected in an unrelated conviction.  In addition, the Fourth Department determined the police had “tacit consent” to enter defendant’s apartment:

Here, “[t]he record supports the court’s determination that the identity of defendant as the sexual assailant, and thus his whereabouts, were not ascertainable by diligent efforts” before 2008, when the State DNA Indexing System matched the DNA profile from the semen found on the victim’s night shirt with DNA obtained from defendant in conjunction with an unrelated 2007 conviction … .  * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, that there was a warrantless arrest of defendant in his apartment, we note that it is well settled that “tacit consent by a person with apparent authority . . . [is] sufficient to obviate any possible violation of the Payton rule”…. Here, the People established that the police officers entered the apartment with the consent of defendant’s father…. Although “the police may not have received express permission to enter the premises, [the] gesture [of defendant’s father] of opening the door, leaving it wide open, and then walking  away from it could certainly be interpreted by the police to consist of tacit approval for them to enter”….  People v Sigl, 716, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

Plea Colloquy Deficient Re: Depraved Indifference State of Mind

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the plea colloquy cast doubt on whether the defendant had the requisite “depraved indifference” state of mind:

Defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowing and voluntary survives his waiver of the right to appeal … . Preservation of the contention is not required inasmuch as defendant correctly contends that his statements during the plea colloquy cast significant doubt upon his guilt….Defendant stated that he struggled with his wife for control of the knife and that he acted recklessly when he stabbed her, and thus his statements suggest that he did not act with the requisite “depraved indifference state of mind”… . Indeed, it is well established that a “one-on-one . . . knifing . . . can almost never qualify as depraved indifference murder”…. We therefore conclude that County Court erred by accepting the plea without further inquiry … .  People v Robinson, 688, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

Naming Different Victim Rendered Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective

The Fourth Department reversed the defendant’s conviction (by guilty plea) because the superior court information (SCI) was jurisdictionally defective.  The SCI and the felony complaint named different victims:

We note that defendant’s contention that the SCI is jurisdictionally defective does not require preservation, and that contention survives defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal….“[T]he designation of a[n individual] in the [SCI] different from the [individual] named in the felony complaint renders the crime contained in the information a different crime entirely”…. Thus, defendant was not held for action of a grand jury on the charge in the SCI inasmuch as “it was not an offense charged in the felony complaint or a lesser-included offense of an offense charged in the felony complaint”… .   People v Stevenson, 648, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Statement Not Tainted by Unwarned Statement Made an Hour Before; Failure to Inform Defendant of Post Release Supervision Did Not Require Reversal

The Fourth Department determined County Court properly denied a motion to suppress a statement, finding that the statement was not tainted by an unwarned statement made an hour earlier.  In addition, over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department held that the failure to explain the five-year post release supervision (PRS) portion of the sentence when the plea was taken did not require reversal, in part because the error was not preserved:

Although defendant made an inculpatory statement after she was placed in a patrol vehicle and additional inculpatory statements after she was transported to the police station, the court granted suppression of the statement made in the patrol vehicle on the ground that her detention constituted an arrest for which the police officer lacked probable cause. The court refused, however, to suppress the subsequent statements at the police station based on its determination that they were “attenuated from the unlawful arrest.” We agree with the People that the record supports the court’s determination .. . Although there was a period of only one hour between the time of the illegal arrest and the time of defendant’s statements at the police station …, we note that defendant was given Miranda warnings before the stationhouse interview … Moreover, the victim’s identification of defendant as the perpetrator constitutes a significant intervening event … inasmuch as that identification provided the police with probable cause for defendant’s arrest…  Lastly, there was no flagrant misconduct or bad faith on the part of the police officer who took defendant into custody … . * * *

In this case the prosecutor informed the court,“ ‘before the imposition of sentence’ ” (…see generally CPL 220.60 [3]), that he could not recall whether PRS had been discussed at the time of the plea. The prosecutor noted that they “should probably make a record of that . . . so it is clear.” At that point, the court informed defendant that it “intend[ed] to make a five year period of [PRS].” Defendant was then asked if she had a chance to talk about that with her attorney, and defendant answered, “[y]es.” Defendant was also asked if she understood that the PRS was a “part of [her] plea” and that she would be on parole supervision for five years at the end of her prison sentence. Defendant answered, “[c]orrect.”  When asked if she “still wish[ed] to go through with sentencing today,” defendant again answered, “[y]es.” In our view, the record is clear that “defendant could have sought relief from the sentencing court in advance of the sentence’s imposition…”… .  People v Turner, 529, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

, ,

Objection to Molineux Evidence Not Preserved for Appeal

The Fourth Department noted that failure to request a limiting instruction with respect to Molineux evidence and the failure to object to the court’s failure to provide a limiting instruction rendered the issue unpreserved for appeal.  The Molineux evidence in this sexual abuse case was evidence of the physical (not sexual) abuse of the victim’s brother:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [a]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]), defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because Supreme Court neglected to give limiting instructions with respect to Molineux evidence establishing that he had subjected the victim’s brother to physical abuse (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264). As defendant correctly concedes, that contention is unpreserved for our review because his attorney did not request a limiting instruction and failed to object to the court’s failure to provide one (see CPL 470.05 [2]…).    Because the Molineux evidence in question did not relate to prior sexual abuse, and because it appears from the record that defense counsel knew of the court’s failure to give limiting instructions and yet remained silent when the error could have been corrected, we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Willians, 392, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

Trial Court’s Questioning Jury Whether It Had Reached a Verdict on Any Counts and Its Acceptance of a Partial Verdict Okay

The First Department determined the trial court, after several days of deliberation, properly questioned the jury whether it had reached a verdict on any of the counts and properly accepted a partial verdict:

The court, which was aware of the travel plans and upcoming religious observance of some of the jurors, properly exercised its discretion when it inquired whether the jury, which had been deliberating for several days, had agreed upon a verdict as to any of the counts submitted, and then accepted a partial verdict…. In accordance with CPL 310.70(1)(b), the court properly instructed the jury to resume deliberations on the remaining counts. The court’s actions did not coerce a verdict as to any counts…, and defendant has not shown how he was prejudiced by any of these actions.  People v Campbell, 2013 NY Slip Op 04418, 1st Dept, 6-13-13

 

, ,

People’s Expert Was Not Qualified to Testify About “Reverse Extrapolation” in DWI Prosecution/”Reverse Extrapolation” Is an Accepted Theory However

In this DWI prosecution, the Third Department determined the People’s expert was not qualified to offer testimony about “reverse extrapolation,” but that the theory itself was sound:

[We reject defendant’s generalized challenge to] the  theory  of  reverse extrapolation – the process by which an expert, taking into consideration, among other  things, an individual’s known  BAC at a particular point  in time, renders  an  opinion  as  to  the  individual’s BAC at an earlier point in time. Assuming the expert in question is qualified and a proper foundation has been laid for such opinion, reverse extrapolation testimony may be….  Here, however, the People failed to lay a proper factual foundation for [the expert’s] testimony and, therefore, defendant’s objection in this regard should have been sustained.  People v Menegan, 105337, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

,

Witness’ Offering Testimony About a “Jailhouse Confession” in Unrelated Case May Constitute Brady Material

In affirming the defendant’s conviction, the Third Department determined a witness’ [Henry’s] agreement to testify about a “jailhouse confession” in an unrelated case may have constituted Brady material in defendant’s case because she also entered an agreement to testify about defendant’s “jailhouse confession.”  The Court determined reversal was not required because the potential Brady error was harmless under the facts:

“….[A]ssuming, without deciding, that the full terms of Henry’s cooperation agreement – including those aspects pertaining to the other matter – were Brady material subject to disclosure, reversal is not required.   Where, as here, nondisclosure follows the defense’s specific request for materials, evidence is deemed material and reversal is required only “if there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that, had that material been disclosed, the result would have been different”… . People v Johnson, 104919, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

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