You are here: / Criminal Law

Transfer to Another County for Probation Did Not Divest Sentencing Court of Jurisdiction Over Defendant’s Violation of His Intermittent Sentence​

In this case Columbia County Court sentenced defendant to intermittent imprisonment in the Columbia County jail and five years probation in Greene County where defendant resided.  After defendant failed to report to Columbia County Jail, County Court revoked the intermittent sentence and sentenced defendant to four months. Defendant contended Columbia County Court had relinquished jurisdiction by transferring the probation term to Greene County.  The Third Department disagreed:

Defendant’s reliance on CPL 410.80 – which provides for transfer of probation supervision by the sentencing court to the Probation Department in the jurisdiction (county) where  the defendant  resides at sentencing –  is misplaced … . Defendant was not charged  with violating probation but, rather, was  alleged to have violated his intermittent sentence of imprisonment.  The transfer in CPL  410.80 (2) of “all powers  and  duties” of the sentencing court over supervision of probationers to the receiving court does not, as defendant argues, divest the sentencing court of its express jurisdiction to modify  or revoke a sentence of intermittent imprisonment pursuant to Penal Law § 85.05 (1) (b) … . People v Dick, 104424, 3rd Dept, 5-23-13

 

,

Expert Evidence About a “Date Rape” Drug Not Implicated in the Trial Did Not Require Reversal; Jury Deemed to Have Considered Only Evidence Supported by the Record​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department upheld the conviction for rape and for facilitating a sex offense with a controlled substance.  The controlled substance referenced in the indictment and the subject of proof at trial was ecstasy.  However, expert evidence of the effects of another drug, GBH, was allowed in at trial. The First Department determined the unsupported testimony about GBH did not require reversal because it could be assumed the jury relied upon the allegations supported by the evidence:

…[T]he reference in the experts’ testimony to GHB and its symptoms, and the People’s reference to that evidence in support of their summation, did not impermissibly present the jury with a new, legally inadequate theory…. Rather, at worst, the suggestion that the complainant may have also been drugged with GHB was merely a “factually unsupported theory” …. “[W]here jurors are given a choice between a factually supported and factually unsupported theory, it is assumed they have chosen the one with factual support” …. Here, we can assume that in determining whether the complainant was “rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling [her] conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to [her] without [her] consent,” the jurors relied on those of the People’s assertions that were supported by the evidence. People v Blackwood, 2013 NY Slip Op 03764, 2nd Dept, 5-23-13

 

,

Defense Counsel Deemed Ineffective/Failed to Examine Evidence

The First Department determined defense counsel was ineffective (requiring a new trial) because he emphasized the difference between the Ziploc bags (containing drugs) the defendant was alleged to have sold to an undercover officer and the bags which were in defendant’s possession upon his arrest without ever comparing them.  When the jury asked to see the bags which were in defendant’s possession, defense counsel was forced to acknowledge that they matched those purchased by the undercover officer:

In focusing on the Ziploc bags, counsel eviscerated his entire strategy. No longer could the jury believe that no physical evidence tied defendant to the charges; to the contrary, counsel pointed them in the direction of strong physical evidence. Further, the jury could not be expected to acquit defendant on the theory that the People’s case lacked credibility when his own counsel demonstrated a lack of believability on a critical issue at trial. In addition, defendant’s own credibility was directly undermined by counsel’s failure to conduct due diligence, since he testified about a discrepancy between the drugs purchased by the undercover and those recovered from him by the police. There was no sound strategy underlying counsel’s decision to focus the jury on the evidence bags. By his own admission, it was a mistake, and he would not have highlighted the Ziploc bags had he known their actual contents. This self-sabotage of counsel’s defense strategy, albeit inadvertent, was inherently unreasonable and prejudiced defendant’s right to a fair trial under New York law… .  People v Barnes, 2013 NY Slip Op 03757, 1st Dept, 5-23-13

 

, ,

Conviction for Possession With Intent to Sell Against Weight of Evidence​

In finding defendant’s conviction for possession with intent to sell was against the weight of the evidence, the Second Department (with a dissent) wrote:

…[T]he amount of cocaine recovered from the defendant was relatively small and not inconsistent with personal use. Indeed, convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance involving intent to sell generally stem from situations where a significantly greater quantity of drugs is recovered from the defendant’s person…. Even more important, the defendant was found to be in possession of no drug paraphernalia or weapons, and he had only $20 in cash … .Although there was testimony that street drug sales often involve bags of drugs costing $20 each, the mere fact that the defendant was in possession of a single $20 bill cannot be considered indicative of an intent to sell.  People v McFadden, 2013 NY Slip Op 03690, 2nd Dept, 5-22-12

 

,

Trial Judge Can Rescind Mistrial Declaration; Retrial Okay Where Defendant Consents to Mistrial​

The Second Department determined that a trial judge can rescind a mistrial declaration and noted that a mistrial granted with the consent of the defendant does not bar retrial:

When a mistrial is declared in a criminal case without the consent, or over the objection, of the defendant, the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in section 6 of article I of the New York Constitution precludes a retrial for the same offense unless ” there is a manifest necessity for [the mistrial], or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated'”…. Conversely, when a defendant requests or consents to a mistrial, double jeopardy typically does not bar a retrial ….

The mere declaration of a mistrial does not terminate a criminal trial and thereby divest the trial court of the authority to rescind the declaration…. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the District Court did not retain the discretion to rescind its previous declaration of a mistrial prior to the discharge of the jury. Moreover, the District Court’s initial declaration of a mistrial, made without the petitioner’s consent, was rescinded and, thereafter, a mistrial was declared upon the petitioner’s consent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the petition to the extent that it did, and in barring a retrial of the petitioner on the ground of double jeopardy. Matter of Gorman v Rice, 2013 NY Slip Op 03673, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

Court’s Quashing of Defense Subpoena Deprived Defendant of Right to Present a Defense​

The Second Department determined the trial court quashing of an subpoena served upon a defense witness deprived defendant of his constitutional right to present a defense and required a new trial. People v Eastment, 2013 NY Slip Op 03687, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

Sentence for Possession of Marijuana Deemed Unduly Harsh

The Fourth Department determined the sentence of a determinate term of incarceration for 2 ½ years for criminal possession of marijuana in the second degree was unduly harsh and severe.  The sentence was reduced to 1 ½ years.  People v Hirsh, KA 12-00043, 4th Dept, 5-17-13

 

Defendant’s Papers Deemed Insufficient to Trigger Need for Suppression Hearing

The Third Department determined the defendant’s motion papers did not demonstrate the need for a suppression hearing:

Because defendant failed to allege sufficient facts to justify a hearing, County Court did not err in summarily denying defendant’s motion for a Mapp hearing…. Motion papers seeking suppression of evidence “must state the ground or grounds of the motion and must contain sworn allegations of fact . . . supporting such grounds” (CPL 710.60 [1]).A hearing is not automatic; a court may summarily deny the motion if the papers do not allege a legal basis for suppression  or if the factual allegations do not as a matter of law support any alleged ground (see CPL 710.60 [3];…) “[F]actual sufficiency should be determined with reference to the face of the pleadings, the context of the motion and [the] defendant’s access to information”….  Here, defendant made his motion after he was supplied with the search warrant application, supporting documents and return, as well as discovery. He had resolved the other criminal charges that precipitated the warrant application, providing him with information related to the situation surrounding the application. In these circumstances, defendant’s bare allegation of a lack of probable cause, without any factual support, was insufficient to require a hearing …   Accordingly, the court properly determined that a hearing was not necessary to decide the motion. People v Vanness, 103553, 3rd Dept, 5-16-13

 

Proper Procedure for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Explained

The Third Department explained the proper procedure for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act as follows:

The Drug Law Reform Act establishes a specific procedural course that was not followed here. Upon  finding a  defendant eligible for resentencing, the court must  issue a  written interlocutory order informing the defendant of the term of imprisonment  it intends to impose, setting forth findings of fact and the reasons underlying the proposed resentence, and advising the defendant  that, unless he or she withdraws  the application or appeals from the interlocutory order, the court will vacate the original sentence and impose the proposed resentence (see L 2004, ch 738, § 23).County  Court’s failure to proceed  in this manner deprived defendant of the opportunity to carefully consider his options, including the taking of an  appeal  from  the interlocutory order.  People v Minor, 104880, 3rd Dept, 5-16-13

 

 

,

Gang Affiliation and Prior Drug Offenses Admissible Under Molineux in Murder Case/Motion to Suppress Statement Made When Questioning Continued After Defendant Stated He Did Not Want to Answer Any More Questions Should Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined evidence of defendant’s gang affiliation and uncharged drug offenses were admissible in defendant’s murder trial under Molineux.  In addition, the Third Department determined defendant’s statements made after he said he didn’t want to answer any more questions should have been suppressed.  [The Third Department rejected the People’s argument that the suppression issue was decided in a prior prosecution and the doctrine of collateral estoppel should apply.] With respect to the Molineux and “right to remain silent” issues, the Court wrote:

“Generally speaking, evidence of uncharged  crimes or prior bad acts may be admitted where they fall within the recognized Molineux exceptions – motive, intent, absence of mistake, common plan or scheme and identity – or where such proof is inextricably interwoven with the charged crimes, provide[s] necessary background or complete[s] a witness’s narrative” … . Here, defendant’s drug-related activities and purported gang membership provided necessary background information, explained how [the other parties] and defendant knew one another (as well as why defendant’s acquaintances went along with his plan to rob the weed spot[where the murder took place]) and, viewed in the context of the activities that occurred prior to the shooting, established both defendant’s awareness of the weed spot and a motive for the shooting; thus, such “evidence was highly probative of several relevant and material issues at trial and genuinely interwoven with the facts surrounding the shooting” … .

The case law makes clear that “[a] defendant’s invocation of the right to remain silent must be scrupulously honored” … once the right is asserted in an “unequivocal and unqualified” fashion … Whether  a defendant’s  request in this regard is “unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to  the  circumstances surrounding  the  request[,] including the defendant’s demeanor, manner of expression and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant” … .  People v Johnson, 104081, 3rd Dept, 5-16-13

SUPPRESSION, SUPPRESS

 

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