You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Suppression Ruling Reversed—Pat Down Search Justified for Officer Safety​

Over two dissents, the Fourth Department reversed the grant of suppression by County Court.  The questioning of the defendant was instigated by the defendant’s staring at the officer as the officer was in his vehicle and the defendant was riding a bicycle.  The defendant ran his bicycle into a porch, fell and ran up the steps. At that point the officer approached him and asked him for identification.  The defendant kept putting his hand in his pocket after the officer asked him not to. The officer grabbed the defendant’s hand as defendant reached into his pocket.  As he did so, the officer touched an object he believed to be a handgun and he reached into the pocket and removed it.  The majority felt the officer was justified in grabbing the defendant’s hand and retrieving the object to protect his safety.  The dissenters felt the information available to the officer did not amount to reasonable suspicion of criminality such that a forcible stop and frisk was justified. People v Sims, KA 12-01247, 324, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

SUPPRESS, SEARCH, STREET STOP

, ,

Trial Court’s Refusal to Allow Defense Witness to Be Called Required Reversal 

The Fourth Department (over two dissents) reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the defense was precluded from calling a witness.  The prosecution’s theory was that the defendant committed robbery, assault and burglary against the victim in retaliation for the victim’s informing the police defendant was growing marijuana in his house. It was anticipated the witness the defense was not allowed to call would testify that defendant accused him (the witness) of being the informant but did not assault or threaten him.  The Fourth Department explained:

It is well settled that “a defendant’s ‘right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense . . . is a fundamental element of due process of law’ ” …In fact, “[f]ew rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his [or her] own defense” …Thus, the testimony of a defense witness should not be prospectively excluded unless the offer of such proof is palpably in bad faith …. Instead, courts upon proper objection should “rule on the admissibility of the evidence offered” …. Here, the People do not suggest that the testimony of the proposed witness was offered in bad faith, and the court did not make such a finding at trial. Indeed, there is no basis in the record for concluding that the offer of proof was palpably in bad faith. The court therefore should have allowed the proposed witness to testify, whereupon the prosecutor could object to any testimony she deemed inadmissible or improper.  People v Arena, KA 12-01632, 179, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE

,

State Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over “Dangerous Sex Offender” Civil Management Proceeding Because Defendant Would Not Be Released Upon Finishing State Sentence—Defendant Had 19 Years to Go on Federal Sentence

As a sex offender (respondent) neared the end of his state sentence, the state (petitioner) sought a proceeding under article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law alleging the respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring civil management.  However, the respondent was also serving a federal sentence and would not be released for another 19 years.  For that reason, the Fourth Department determined the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the Mental Hygiene Law proceeding:

It is well settled that a court is without subject matter jurisdiction “when it lacks the competence to adjudicate a particular kind of controversy in the first place. As the Court of Appeals has observed, ‘[t]he question of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of judicial power: whether the court has the power, conferred by the Constitution or statute, to entertain the case before it’ ”….Moreover, subject matter jurisdiction requires that the matter before the court is ripe …. In other words, courts “may not issue judicial decisions that can have no immediate effect and may never resolve anything,” and thus “an action may not be maintained if the issue presented for adjudication involves a future event beyond control of the parties which may never occur” ….It is axiomatic that an article 10 determination issued in 2013 would have no immediate effect on a sex offender who is not to be released from federal prison until 19 to 22 years later, especially considering the well-accepted principle that a sex offender, who is at one point determined to be dangerous, may subsequently be found to no longer be dangerous—a principle recognized by article 10’s allowance for annual reviews …. Matter of State v Calhoun, CA 11-02578, 314, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Statements Made by Defendant During First 15 Hours of a 60-Hour Interrogation Not Coerced

The Fourth Department determined the trial court properly ruled that the defendant’s statements during the first 15 hours of a 60-hour interrogation need not be suppressed as the product of coercion.  People v Collins, KA 09-00932, 1367, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

SUPPRESS, SUPPRESSION

,

Suppression Should Have Been Granted—People Failed to Meet Their Burden of Going Forward at Suppression Hearing​

The Fourth Department ruled that suppression of tangible evidence and statements should have been granted because the People failed to meet their burden of going forward at the suppression hearing by demonstrating the legality of the police conduct.  The Fourth Department further determined that the error was not harmless with respect to all but one of the charges:

We agree with defendant, however, that County Court erred in denying that part of his omnibus motion seeking suppression of the physical evidence that was seized from his vehicle and the statements he made to New York State Police Investigators, inasmuch as the People failed to meet their “burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance” … . * * *
Because the People failed to present evidence at the suppression hearing establishing the legality of the police conduct, defendant’s purported consent to the search of his vehicle was involuntary and all evidence seized from the vehicle as a result of that consent should have been suppressed … .Additionally, defendant’s statements to the police must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.. .  People v Purdy, KA 12-00534, 488, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Criteria for Specific Performance of Plea Agreement Explained

The Fourth Department noted the criteria for a defendant’s right to specific performance of a plea agreement (criteria not met in this case):
“ ‘The remedy of specific performance in the context of plea agreements applies where a defendant has been placed in a no-return position in reliance on the plea agreement . . . , such that specific performance is warranted as a matter of essential fairness’ ” … Inasmuch as neither the prosecution nor the defense had taken any action on the second plea agreement …defendant was not placed in a “ ‘no-return position’ ” in reliance on the second plea agreement and is thus not entitled to specific performance of that agreement… . People v Weather, KA 11-01247, 482, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

Robbery Guilty Plea Rendered Insufficient By Statement Weapon Used Was “Fake”

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s robbery convictions (by guilty pleas) because, in the plea allocution, defendant indicated the weapon involved was “fake.” People v Burroughs, KA 10-00663, 462, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

,

Post-Arrest Exception to Warrant Requirement for Automobile Search Explained

In upholding a search of a purse inside a vehicle after a traffic stop for a seatbelt violation, the Third Department explained the post-arrest exception to the warrant requirement for an automobile search:

Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the police may search an automobile – including containers found inside – when they have arrested one of its occupants and there is “‘probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, evidence of the crime, a weapon or some means of escape’ “The search, however, need not be limited to items related to the crime for which the occupant is being arrested; it may be instituted when the circumstances provide probable cause to believe that any crime has been or is being committed … .  * * *

The Trooper testified that his search was prompted by his observation of the marihuana stem, the suspicious behavior of the front passenger with respect to the brown purse, the fact that none of the vehicle’s occupants  acknowledged  ownership of such purse and the inconsistent statements made by them regarding their destination. Viewing these circumstances as an integrated whole, we conclude that the Trooper had probable cause to believe that a crime had  been or was  being  committed,  which  justified a search of the vehicle, including the brown purse found therein ….. Since we find no error in the search of the vehicle, we also reject defendant’s claim that the statements he made thereafter should have been suppressed as “fruit of the  poisonous  tree.”  People v Thompson, 104836, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

SEARCH, SUPPRESSION, SUPPRESS

,

Kicking In Window Satisfies Entry Element of Burglary

In this case, the Third Department determined kicking in a window satisfies the “entry” element of burglary and the recording by the police of a phone conversation between the defendant and his sister, although it may have violated the eavesdropping statute, was not an error preserved for appeal:

“[T]he entry element of burglary is satisfied ‘when a person intrudes within a building, no matter how slightly, with any part of his or her body'” …, and kicking in a window constitutes an entry even when the perpetrator then flees without further intruding into the building ….  *  *  *

Defendant contended  that he  had  a reasonable expectation of privacy during this conversation,  and  now  further asserts that  police committed the crime of eavesdropping by recording this conversation (see Penal Law § 250.05).  We agree with Supreme Court’s rejection of the privacy claim, and the unpreserved eavesdropping claim does not warrant modification in the interest of justice ….  People v McFarland, 104491, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

Procedure for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Not Followed

County Court failed to comply with the statutory procedure for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (Criminal Procedure Law 440.46).  County Court did not issue a written order re: the new sentence, did not issue written findings of fact and reasons for the sentence, and did not inform the defendant of his right to appeal the resentence or his right to withdraw his motion for resentencing.  The Third Department wrote:

Resentencing under CPL 440.46 incorporates the detailed procedures of the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738, § 23…). Those procedures require, as relevant here, that an order issued by  the court informing a defendant of the sentence it will impose in the event of resentencing “must include written findings of fact and reasons for such order” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23 …). Defendant must also be notified that he  or she has a right to appeal that written order of proposed resentencing as well as a right – which can be exercised after the appeal and upon remand – to be  given an  opportunity to withdraw  the application for resentencing before any resentence is imposed…. People v Delayo, 104402, 3rd Dept, 3-2-13

 

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