You are here: / Criminal Law
,

Warrantless Arrest in Home in Absence of Exigent Circumstances Mandated Suppression; Package from Paraguay Addressed to Defendant Properly Opened as a “Border Search”

The Fourth Department determined drugs seized from defendant’s person incident to his arrest should have been suppressed because defendant’s warrantless arrest took place in his home in the absence of exigent circumstances. The court also noted that the search and seizure of a package from Paraguay addressed to defendant did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights because opening the package “constituted a border search … which may be conducted ‘without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country’ “… . People v Boyson, KA 11-01343, 229, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

SUPPRESSION, SEARCH

,

No Exigent Circumstances—Warrantless Search of Home Not Justified

In determining “exigent circumstances” did not exist and therefore the entry of the defendant’s home without a warrant was not justified, the Fourth Department wrote:

Factors to consider in determining whether exigent circumstances exist are “(1) the nature and degree of urgency involved and the amount of time needed to obtain a warrant; (2) a reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed; (3) the possibility of danger to police officers guarding the site of the contraband while a search warrant is sought[;] and (4) information indicating that the possessors of the contraband are aware that the police are on their trail” ….Here, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that exigent circumstances existed to enter defendant’s apartment without a warrant … . The People established that, earlier that day, defendant sold drugs to a police agent inside his residence. In the afternoon, defendant again sold drugs to the police agent at a location outside his home. Defendant was arrested after that sale as he was driving his vehicle back toward his residence. The police went to defendant’s residence 45 minutes after his arrest and climbed through a window to make sure that no one was inside the residence who could destroy evidence before the police could obtain a warrant. Based on that evidence, we conclude that there was no urgency to enter defendant’s residence.  People v Coles, KA 10-02301, 226, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

SUPPRESS, SUPPRESSION, SEARCH

Sentence for Offenses Rising from Same Incident Must Be Concurrent

In determining the sentencing court had erroneously imposed consecutive sentences for offenses arising out of the same incident, the Fourth Department wrote:

“[S]entences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively:(1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other” (… Penal Law § 70.25 [2]). “The defendant benefits if either prong is present, and the prosecution’s burden is to countermand both prongs”…

Here, “the acts which constituted the crime of endangering the welfare of a child were not separate and distinct from the acts which constituted the crimes of” robbery and criminal mischief ….  As a result, the sentences imposed on the robbery and criminal mischief counts must run concurrently with the sentences imposed on the endangering the welfare of a child counts. Furthermore, the evidence establishes that, during his flight from the department store, defendant “floored” his vehicle in reverse with his driver’s side door open, striking the security guard as well as the vehicle parked beside his vehicle.  Those acts served as the basis for the criminal mischief count and for the “use of physical force” element of the robbery count (Penal Law § 160.00; see § 160.05), and thus the sentences imposed on the robbery and the criminal mischief counts must also run concurrently ….  People v Dekenipp, KA 11-00855, 204, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

 

, ,

Acquittal on Assault Charges in First Trial Did Not Preclude Presentation of Evidence of the Assaults in Second Trial—Collateral Estoppel Doctrine Could Not Be Successfully Invoked Because the Meaning of the Acquittals Was Nearly Impossible to Discern

In a second trial, the defendant moved to preclude the prosecution from introducing evidence of two assaults which were the subjects of acquittals in the first trial.  The trial court allowed evidence of the two assaults.  On appeal the defendant argued that evidence of the assaults of which she was acquitted was precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  The Fourth Department disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s admission of the evidence, noting that the exact meaning of an acquittal in a criminal trial is often impossible to demonstrate:

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, operates in a criminal prosecution to bar relitigation of issues necessarily resolved in defendant’s favor at an earlier trial” …. Thus, the doctrine applies in a situation such as this, where at a prior trial there was a mixed verdict in which the jury acquitted a defendant of certain charges, but was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining charges ….  “Application of the collateral estoppel doctrine requires that the court determine what the first judgment decided and how that determination bears on the later judgment . . . The rule is easily stated but frequently difficult to implement because the meaning of a general verdict is not always clear and mixed verdicts may, at times, appear inherently ambiguous.  Nevertheless, the court must assume the jury reached a rational result . . . , and a defendant claiming the benefit of estoppel carries the burden of identifying the particular issue on which he [or she] seeks to foreclose evidence and then establishing that the fact finder in the first trial, by its verdict, necessarily resolved that issue in his [or her] favor” …. “Defendant’s burden to show that the jury’s verdict in the prior trial necessarily decided a particular factual issue raised in the second prosecution is a heavy one indeed, and as a practical matter severely circumscribes the availability of collateral estoppel in criminal prosecutions . . . ‘[I]t will normally be impossible to ascertain the exact import of a verdict of acquittal in a criminal trial’ ” …. People v Brandie E…, KA 09-01366, 202, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

, ,

Error Relating to Assessment of 10% Surcharge Must Be Preserved by Objection

Over two dissents, the Fourth Department determined the argument that a probation officer’s affidavit was not sufficient to justify a 10% surcharge must be preserved for appeal.  The Fourth Department wrote:

We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the issue whether a surcharge of 10% is properly imposed does not require preservation. While this Court has in the past relied on the illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement of CPL 470.05 (2) when reviewing that issue …, more recent decisions from the Court of Appeals have established that issues regarding restitution require preservation …. In addition, the Court of Appeals has held that the mandatory surcharge set forth in Penal Law § 60.35
(1) is not part of a sentence ….Those cases compel us to conclude that an issue regarding a surcharge imposed on restitution pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27 (8) must be preserved for our review and that we cannot rely on the illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement.   People v Kirkland, KA 11-01835, 147, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

, , ,

“Depraved Indifference to Human Life” Defined Differently in Family Law, as Opposed to Criminal Law, Context​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined that the phrase “depraved indifference to human life” as it is used in Social Services Law 384-b(8)(a)(i) to define when a child has been “severely abused” does not have the meaning ascribed to the same phrase under the Penal Law.  In addition, the court clarified the statutory conditions which relieve a social services agency of the requirement to make diligent efforts to reunite the child with the abusive parent.  Judge Read wrote:

Social Services Law § 384-b (8) (a) (i) provides that a child can be found to be severely abused “as a result of reckless or intentional acts of the parent committed under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life” (emphases added). Under the Penal Law, however, a crime requiring proof of an intent to kill can never be committed with depraved indifference … [“[I]t has never been permissible in New York for a jury to convict a defendant of depraved indifference murder where the evidence produced at trial indicated that if the defendant committed homicide at all, he committed it with the conscious objective of killing the victim” … . Additionally, “[a] defendant may be convicted of depraved indifference murder when but a single person is endangered in only a few rare circumstances” …, whereas acts of child abuse necessarily involve one-on-one violence. In short, our depraved indifference jurisprudence under the Penal Law has no bearing on whether a child is severely abused within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384-b (8) (a) (i). For purposes of that statute “circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life” refers to the risk intentionally or recklessly posed to the child by the parent’s abusive conduct.  Matter of Dashawn W …, No 71, CtApp, 4-25-13

 

,

Admission in Evidence of Defendant’s Statements About Prior Murders Did Not Rise to a Constitutional Injury—Harmless Error Doctrine Applied

The Court of Appeals held that the admission at trial of statements made by the defendant indicating he had committed murders other than the murder with which he was charged “did not rise to the level of constitutional injury such as ineffectiveness of counsel or juror partiality.”  Therefore, the harmless error doctrine applied and, in light of the evidence against the defendant, the conviction was affirmed.  People v Byer, No 84, CtApp, 4-25-13

 

, ,

SORA Proof Burdens Explained

The Third Department noted the different proof burdens for a SORA classification hearing versus a modification hearing:

The People concede that defendant is entitled to a new hearing because Supreme Court treated the 2005 rehearing as one for modification, as opposed to classification (compare Correction Law § 168-n, with Correction Law § 168-o).   As the People now acknowledge, they bore the burden of establishing the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence … .  Inasmuch as the record here reflects that the burden was placed on defendant to demonstrate sufficient evidence warranting a departure from the risk level III classification (see Correction Law § 168-o [2]), we remit for a new hearing … . People v Middlemiss, 511311, 3rd Dept, 4-25-13

 

,

Convictions Based Entirely Upon Confession Reversed; Error to Allow Experiment in Evidence; Proof of Victim’s Helplessness Sufficient

In this sexual-crimes case, the Third Department discussed (among other issues): (1) the application of speedy trial rules when an initial indictment is dismissed and then charges stemming from the same incident are brought more than six months later in a second indictment; (2) the sufficiency of proof of the victim’s helplessness (intoxication); and (3) the inadmissibility of an experiment (opening a door with a credit card to demonstrate how defendant could have entered the house) which had nothing to do with the trial evidence.  All but two of the convictions were affirmed.  In reversing the two convictions which were based entirely on the defendant’s confession, the Third Department wrote:

We find that defendant’s convictions of criminal sexual act in the first degree must  be  reversed. “A person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him [or her] without additional proof that the offense charged  has been  committed”  (CPL 60.50). While this additional proof “need  not corroborate every detail of the confession” …, both  of defendant’s criminal sexual act convictions were based solely upon his uncorroborated admissions that he  performed  oral sex on the victim. Defendant’s presence at the scene did not provide the necessary corroboration because the issue is not his identity or connection to the crime but, instead, whether  the crimes  occurred  at all. As there was no corroborating proof “of whatever weight,” these charges must be dismissed… . People v Bjork, 104014, 3rd Dept, 4-25-13

 

,

Fact that Defendant Was Seen With a .25 Caliber Handgun Two and a Half Months Before Charged Shooting Allowed In Evidence to Prove “Identity”

The defendant was convicted of shooting the victim with a .25 caliber handgun.  Under Molineux, the prosecution was allowed to present evidence that the defendant, two and a half months before, was seen brandishing a .25 caliber handgun.  The trial court determined this “prior crime” evidence was admissible to prove the identity of the shooter.  The Third Department affirmed with a strong dissent.  The quotation below, which is from the dissent, outlines one of the elements of a Molineux analysis of prior-crime evidence to prove identity:

[THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION IS FROM THE DISSENT]

The mere fact that defendant was allegedly seen with a .25 caliber weapon on an occasion over two months prior to the crime does not reveal any unique and distinctive modus operandi, nor a “distinctive repetitive pattern”  … . The only behavior described was the act of pulling out a gun – there is nothing unique or distinctive about this act, standing alone – and the weapon was not fired during the alleged earlier incident. Defendant’s mere presence in the same place twice is certainly not unusual, as other people were also present on both occasions. There was simply no evidence that might be considered “‘so unique that the mere proof that . . . defendant had committed a similar act would be highly probative of the fact that he committed the one charged'” … .  People v Myers, 104004, 3rd Dept, 4-25-13

 

 

 

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