You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE VICTIM DIED BY STRANGULATION; THE DEFENSE WAS DEFENDANT DID NOT INTEND TO KILL; THE VICTIM’S HEARSAY STATEMENTS ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW THE DEFENDANT’S, AS OPPOSED TO THE VICTIM’S, STATE OF MIND; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined the victim’s hearsay statements about domestic violence should not have been admitted. There was no applicable exception the the hearsay rule and Molineux evidence of prior bad acts must be in admissible form. The victim died of strangulation. The defense argued defendant did not intend to kill the victim, his girlfriend:

… [T]he admission into evidence of prior statements of the victim regarding instances of domestic violence involving the defendant as proof of murder in the second degree, was error which may not be deemed harmless. This hearsay evidence was admitted, purportedly not for its truth, but to establish the victim’s state of mind, the nature of the parties’ relationship, the defendant’s motive and intent, and the absence of an accident. The victim’s state of mind may be an issue in certain circumstances, warranting the admission of hearsay evidence on that issue pursuant to a recognized hearsay exception … , but it was not at issue in this case. Rather, the evidence was used to establish the defendant’s state of mind, based upon the victim’s characterization of the defendant’s conduct and the acceptance of that characterization for its truth. In People v Brooks (31 NY3d 939, 942), the Court of Appeals ruled that a “witness’s testimony as to the victim’s statement that defendant had previously threatened her constituted double hearsay and was not properly admitted pursuant to any exceptions to the hearsay rule. . . . Nor is there any blanket hearsay exception providing for use of such statements as ‘background’ in domestic violence prosecutions” (citation omitted). Assuming arguendo that evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts was admissible under People v Molineux (168 NY 264]) and its progeny, “there is no Molineux exception to the rule against hearsay . . . . [S]uch evidence must still be in admissible form” … . This purported evidence of the defendant’s state of mind, in this case where intent became the primary issue, was not in admissible form. Thus, the admission of that evidence was error. The error cannot be deemed harmless because the evidence of the defendant’s intent was not overwhelming … . People v Rivers, 2024 NY Slip Op 01731, Second Dept 3-17-24

Practice Point: Here the murder victim’s hearsay statements about domestic violence were allowed in evidence to show the defendant’s, not the victim’s, state of mind. The statements were not admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule. The error was not harmless because the defendant argued he did not intend to kill the victim (who died by strangulation).

 

, ,

STANDING OUTSIDE A VEHICLE AND REACHING INSIDE IS NOT “OCCUPYING” THE VEHICLE SUCH THAT THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF THE CONTENTS OF A VEHICLE CAN BE CHARGED TO THE JURY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon conviction, determined the judge should not have charged the jury with the automobile presumption which ascribes possession of contraband inside a vehicle to the occupants of the vehicle. The evidence did not support the allegation that defendant “occupied” the vehicle. He was seen standing outside the vehicle and reaching inside through an open window. In addition the police officers should have been allowed to narrate the video saying the defendant could be seen inside the vehicle and reaching into the back seat:

… [T]he People admitted a surveillance video, which showed that the defendant briefly leaned his upper body through the open rear passenger side door of the Lincoln Navigator while standing on the vehicle’s running board. However, the video reflected that the defendant never lifted his feet from the running board to climb into the Lincoln Navigator or take a seat inside the vehicle … . Under the circumstances presented, the People’s contention that the defendant “occup[ied]” the vehicle within the meaning of Penal Law § 265.15(3) is without merit. … Supreme Court erred in charging the jury with respect to the automobile presumption. People v Lewis, 2024 NY Slip Op 01728, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: The automobile presumption of possession of the contents of a vehicle by the occupants of the vehicle does not apply to a person standing outside a vehicle and reaching inside through a window.

 

, , , ,

IT WAS ALLEGEDLY EVIDENT FROM THE EMPLOYEE’S JOB APPLICATION THAT HE HAD BEEN IN PRISON; THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION; THE CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT CONSIDERATION OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring and supervision cause of action against defendant LLC stemming from an altercation between plaintiff and the LLC’s employee (McIntosh) should not have been dismissed. It was allegedly evident from McIntosh’s employment application that he had been in prison:

… [P]laintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the LLC “should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . It is well settled that “an employer has a duty to investigate a prospective employee when it knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate that prospective employee” … . McIntosh’s handwritten job application provided facts that should have led the LLC to investigate, as he indicated that he worked at the address of a state prison, he earned a “stipend” instead of the typical hourly wage, and one of his supervisors was a corrections officer, or “C.O.” Although “the depth of inquiry prior to hiring, irrespective of convictions, may vary in reasonable proportion to the responsibilities of the proposed employment,” the record shows that the LLC made no effort to investigate … . Its owner-witness admitted that no background check was performed. She did not know whether a restaurant manager called McIntosh’s past employers, and she had no knowledge of his criminal background, as would have been revealed by a call to the past employer … . Contrary to the LLC’s contention, the Correction Law does not prohibit consideration of a job applicant’s prior convictions, but instead provides a balancing test to determine whether there was a “direct relationship between” a prior offense and the job or whether the employment “would involve an unreasonable risk . . . to the safety or welfare of . . . the general public” (Correction Law §§ 752[1]- Darbeau v 136 W. 3rd St., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01672, First Dept 3-26-24

Practice Point: Where an applicant’s job application indicates the applicant had been incarcerated, an employer’s failure to investigate may support a negligent hiring and supervision cause of action. The Correction Law does not prohibit an inquiry into prior convictions.

 

,

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) VIOLATED THE LESS IS MORE ACT (LIMA) BY FAILING TO HOLD A RECOGNIZANCE HEARING WITHIN 24 HOURS, AND FAILING TO HOLD A PRELIMINARY HEARING WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE EXECUTION OF THE PAROLE-VIOLATION WARRANT; HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming the grant of the habeas corpus petition, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gonzalez, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s (DOCCS’s) failure to hold a recognizance hearing on petitioner’s alleged violation of parole within 24 hours as required by the Less is More Act (LIMA) (Executive Law 259-i) violated due process:

LIMA’s plain language was abrogated when petitioner’s recognizance hearing was held five days after the execution of the warrant, instead of within the requisite 24 hours. This error was compounded when the preliminary hearing was held seven days after the execution of the warrant, instead of the requisite five days (Executive Law § 259-i[3][c][i][B]). The interpretation that DOCCS advances would bypass LIMA and effectively remove its statutory duty to ensure that recognizance hearings are timely held within 24 hours of the warrant execution … . Matter of People of the State of N.Y. v Annucci, 2024 NY Slip Op 01685, First Dept 3-26-24

Practice Point: The statutory requirement that a recognizance hearing must be held within 24 hours and a preliminary hearing must be held within five days of the execution of a parole-violation warrant is strictly enforced. Failure to comply with the statutory time-limits violates due process and warrant granting a habeas corpus petition.

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY HANDLED ALLEGATIONS OF RACIAL BIAS WHICH INVOLVED HALF THE JURORS IN THIS MURDER CASE; TWO JUSTICES DISSENTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the trial judge correctly and adequately handled allegations of racial bias among the jurors. The decision is detailed and comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

From the dissent:

We recognize that “a trial court’s investigation of juror misconduct or bias is a delicate and complex task” … . On this record, however, the disclosure of alleged racial bias harbored by approximately half of the members of the jury warranted, at the very least, a question posed to each of the members of the panel of whether they could perform their duties as jurors without bias or prejudice. We also conclude that, in its voir dire of juror No. 10, the court did not explore whether juror No. 10 harbored any racial prejudice toward Black people, a prerequisite to determining whether she, in fact, could be unequivocally fair and impartial in deliberations. Under these circumstances, the court should also have determined on the record “whether the juror’s statements created a substantial risk of prejudice to the rights of the defendant by coloring the views of the other jurors as well as her own” … . People v Wiggins, 2024 NY Slip Op 01659, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Pont: Here a juror alleged half the jurors exhibited racial bias. The majority held the judge properly handled the question and properly determined defendant would get a fair trial. There was a two-justice dissent which argued further questioning of the jurors was required.

 

,

THE TRIAL TESTIMONY RENDERED THE COUNT DUPLICITOUS, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial testimony rendered the count duplicitous:

“Even if a count facially charges one criminal act, that count is duplicitous if the evidence makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict” … . Here, count 2 of the indictment charged defendant with sexual abuse in the first degree regarding an alleged instance, occurring between July 2012 and January 2013, in which she subjected the victim to sexual contact when he was less than 11 years old. At trial, however, the victim testified to multiple acts of sexual contact during the relevant time frame, any one of which could serve as the sexual contact necessary to prove defendant’s guilt of count 2.

Because each act of alleged sexual contact constitutes “a separate and distinct offense” … , the victim’s testimony that numerous such acts occurred during the relevant time frame rendered count 2 of the indictment duplicitous. Indeed, ” ‘it is impossible to verify that each member of the jury convicted defendant for the same criminal act’ ” in connection with count 2 … . People v Zona, 2024 NY Slip Op 01652, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: If the indictment charges one incident during the described time-frame and the trial testimony reveals more than one incident, it is impossible to know whether the jury reached a unanimous verdict on any one incident.

 

, ,

A SIROIS HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER WITNESSES ARE UNAVAILABLE TO TESTIFY BECAUSE OF INTIMIDATION IS A MATERIAL STAGE OF A TRIAL; DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE HEARING; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have conducted the Sirois hearing, which is a material stage of a trial, in the absence of defendant and defense counsel. The hearing determined two witnesses were unavailable to testify because of intimidation. Defense counsel was allowed to submit questions to be posed during the hearing:

… [A] new trial is warranted with respect to the criminal possession of a weapon count because he was denied his right to be present at a material stage of the trial (… see generally CPL 260.20). During the suppression hearing, allegations were made that defendant, or people acting at his behest, had threatened two witnesses to the underlying incident about testifying against defendant. The People, therefore, requested a Sirois hearing and sought a determination that the witnesses had been made constructively unavailable to testify at trial by threats attributable to defendant, allowing them to introduce at trial statements made by the witnesses that would otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay … . * * *

The court erred in conducting the Sirois hearing without defendant or defense counsel present. “[A] defendant’s absence at a Sirois hearing has a substantial effect on [their] ability to defend the charges against [them] and, thus, a Sirois hearing constitutes a material stage of the trial” … . A “[d]efendant [is] entitled to confront the witness[es] against [them] at [such a] hearing and also to be present so that [the defendant can] advise counsel of any errors or falsities in the witness[es]’ testimony which could have an impact on guilt or innocence” … . People v Steele, 2024 NY Slip Op 01642, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point; Here defendant and defense counsel were excluded from the Sirois hearing which determined two prosecution witnesses were unavailable to testify because of intimidation. Because the hearing is a material stage of the trial, defendant must be present. Allowing defense counsel to submit written questions was insufficient. A new trial was required.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN PRIOR NOTICE OF THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DECISION TO ASSESS 25 POINTS FOR A RISK FACTOR WHEN THE SORA BOARD SUGGESTED FIVE AND THE PEOPLE AGREED TO FIVE; NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the SORA risk-level assessment and remitting the matter for a new hearing, determined the defendant did not have notice of the judge’s sua sponte assessment of 25 points for risk factor 2, when both the SORA Board and the People recommended a five point assessment:

… [T]he court assessed 25 points under risk factor 2 even though the Board had recommended that five points be assessed and the People requested five points. Although the court stated during an appearance prior to the SORA hearing that “it does appear that the upward modification [sic] that was requested [in writing] by the People may be warranted in regards to the sexual intercourse factor,” the court misapprehended the nature of the People’s request for an upward departure, which plainly was not based on a disagreement with the Board’s recommendation under risk factor 2. In any event, the court did not grant an upward departure; instead, after determining at the hearing that only five points should be assessed under risk factor 2, the court later assessed 25 points based on an indication in the case summary that defendant stated at sentencing on the qualifying offense that he had consensual sexual intercourse with the victim.

Because defendant did not have notice that the court was considering a sua sponte assessment of additional points under risk factor 2, we “reverse the order, vacate defendant’s risk level determination, and remit the matter to [Supreme] Court for a new risk level determination, and a new hearing if necessary, in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3) and defendant’s due process rights” … . People v Acosta, 2024 NY Slip Op 01626, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: The judge in a SORA risk-level hearing cannot, sua sponte, increase the number of points assessed for a risk factor without prior notice to the defendant. Notice that the People will seek an upward departure does not constitute notice of increased points for a specific risk factor.

Similar issue and result where the People did not give notice of their intent to request a 10 point assessment for risk factor 12. People v Lostumbo, 2024 NY Slip Op 01639, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

​

​

,

CONSULT THIS OPINION FOR IN-DEPTH DISCUSSIONS OF WHEN POSTREADINESS DELAY SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PEOPLE; THE DISSENT ARGUED THIS RULING UPENDS DECADES OF PRECEDENT BY ATTRIBUTING A DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COURT TO THE PEOPLE, RESULTING IN A SPEEDY-TRIAL VIOLATION (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over an extensive three-judge dissenting opinion, reversed defendant’s misdemeanor (reckless driving) conviction on speedy-trial grounds. The majority and dissenting opinions are comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here. The opinions should be consulted for in depth discussions of how postreadiness delays should be calculated. The dissent argued that decades of precedent have been upended by the majority’s ruling because postreadiness delay which was attributable to the court (the People asked for a 12-day adjournment and the court imposed a 43-day adjournment) was attributed to the People:

Here … the People filed an off-calendar statement of readiness, were not ready on three successive trial dates, and failed to provide any explanation despite the court’s invitation to do so, and despite the opportunity to provide an explanation in their opposition to [defendant’s] 30.30 motion. Indeed, even in their papers to this Court, the People offered no explanation for any of the times they were not ready on a previously scheduled trial date to which they had assented. Surely that conduct does not serve the legislature’s intended purpose of “discourag[ing] prosecutorial inaction” … . Instead, the People’s conduct fits squarely within our dissenting colleagues understanding of postreadiness delays—they are “charged to the People only when the delay is attributable to their inaction and directly implicates their ability to proceed to trial” … .

From the dissent:

The majority’s opinion upends [the] common-sense understanding that courts and parties have relied on for decades by attributing the court’s postreadiness delay to the People. Applied here, this new rule means the People are held responsible for 43 days of postreadiness delay when they requested only a 12-day adjournment and the additional 31 days were undisputedly caused by court—all because the prosecutor appearing did not know the underlying reason for the People’s 12-day adjournment request. People v Labate, 2024 NY Slip Op 01582, CtApp 3-21-24

Practice Point: This opinion should be consulted for in-depth discussions of when postreadiness delay is attributed to the People. The dissent argued decades of precedent have been upended by this ruling because postreadiness delay which should have been attributed to the court was attributed to the People, resulting in a speedy-trial violation.

 

,

EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANT ACTED OUT OF ANGER WAS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FINDNG THAT DEFENDANT “RELISHED” THE INFLICTION OF EXTREME PAIN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER STATUTE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, affirming defendant’s first degree murder conviction, determined the evidence demonstrated defendant “relished” the infliction of extreme pain within the meaning of the first degree murder statute. The defendant argued the evidence demonstrated he acted out of anger, and did not demonstrate he relished or enjoyed inflicting pain. But the Court of Appeals found proof of both anger and enjoyment, noting that the two emotions are not mutually exclusive:

We reject defendant’s argument that he acted only out of anger or a desire to get information from the victim. … [W]here the requisite motivation is at least a “substantial factor” in the murder, the statute is satisfied, even if the defendant “may have had mixed motives” … . Certainly, the goal of extracting information is not incompatible with relishing the infliction of extreme pain, and proof that a defendant acted out of anger in harming the victim does not preclude the jury from finding that defendant took pleasure in doing so. Here, defendant is heard on the recording continuing to attack the victim even after stating that her response was “good enough.” On this record, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that while defendant may have also acted in anger or sought information from the victim, taking pleasure in inflicting extreme pain upon her was a substantial motivation. People v Bohn, 2024 NY Slip Op 01500, Ct App 3-19-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant argued his actions which resulted in the death of the victim were motivated solely by anger, and that there was no proof he “relished” the infliction of extreme pain as required by the first degree murder statute. The Court of Appeals held that the two emotional states, anger and relishing or enjoying the infliction of pain, are not mutually exclusive.

 

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