You are here: / Criminal Law
,

ALLOWING EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED CRIMES AND BAD ACTS UNDER MOLINEUX, AND ALLOWING DEFENDANT HARVEY WEINSTEIN TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THOSE UNCHARGED ALLEGATIONS UNDER SANDOVAL, DEPRIVED HIM OF A FAIR TRIAL; CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND RAPE CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over two three-judge dissenting opinions, reversing defendant’s criminal-sexual-act and rape convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes and bad acts under Molineux and the Sandoval ruling allowing the defendant to be cross-examined about the uncharged allegations, deprived defendant of a fair trial:

Before trial, the court granted the prosecution’s application to admit certain testimony of uncharged crimes and miscellaneous bad acts as an exception to the Molineux rule, prohibiting such evidence, to establish defendant’s intent and his understanding of the complainants’ lack of consent. Thus, Complainant B could testify about defendant’s uncharged sexual assaults against her before and after the charged rape and her awareness of defendant’s abusive and threatening behavior, and three other women (the “Molineux Witnesses”) could testify regarding defendant’s sexual misconduct towards them years before and after the charged offenses involving Complainants A and B.

The court also granted … the prosecution’s Sandoval application to cross-examine defendant on a broad range of uncharged bad acts should he testify. … [T]he prosecution was permitted to ask about, for example, whether defendant: directed a witness to lie to defendant’s wife; filed an application for a passport using a friend’s social security number; told a woman he “could harm her professionally” but could also offer her a book publishing opportunity; used his entertainment company’s budget for personal costs; withdrew from a business deal and asked others to cease its funding; hid a woman’s clothes; insisted that members of his staff falsify a photo for a movie poster by photoshopping a female actor’s head on another woman’s nude body; told a private intelligence firm to manipulate or lie to people; scheduled a business meeting in 2012 with a woman under false pretenses; induced executives to lie on his behalf; made threats and committed acts of violence against people who worked for him; abandoned a colleague by the side of the road in a foreign country; physically attacked his brother; threatened to cut off a colleague’s genitals with gardening shears; screamed and cursed at hotel restaurant staff after they told him the kitchen was closed; and threw a table of food. The court also permitted the prosecution to cross-examine defendant about the details of the sexual assault allegations described by the Molineux Witnesses during the prosecution’s case-in-chief. People v Weinstein, 2024 NY Slip Op 02222, CtApp 4-25-24

Practice Point: Molineux and Sandoval are still alive and kicking.

 

,

A JUROR WAS CONVINCED DEFENDANT HAD FOLLOWED HER HOME AND SO INFORMED THE JURY DURING DELIBERATIONS; THE JUROR WAS “GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED” AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined a juror should have been dismissed as “grossly unqualified,” and a mistrial should have been granted:

Upon a jury verdict, the trial court convicted Kenneth Fisher of three counts of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance (PL 220.16) arising from two controlled buy operations. He was sentenced to nine years in prison. One of the jurors in Mr. Fisher’s case was certain that Mr. Fisher had followed her home after the first day of jury selection, a belief the trial court deemed likely unfounded. Instead of promptly informing the court of her concern, she instead waited three days, until the case was submitted to the jury, and then expressed her safety concern to the other jurors as they deliberated. Those facts established that the juror was “grossly unqualified” pursuant to CPL 270.35, because it was clear she “possesse[d] a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict” … . Although the trial judge then elicited some assurances that the juror could put aside her concerns, those assurances were insufficient to support a conclusion that the juror should be retained. Therefore, the juror should have been dismissed and a mistrial granted. * * *

Strongly held, prejudicial beliefs about the defendant which are not based on the trial evidence strike at the heart of the right to an impartial jury, and therefore render a juror “grossly unqualified” unless the bias can be cured or set aside. Given the extent of Juror Six’s prejudicial beliefs and her introduction of those beliefs into deliberations, it was error to conclude that the issue was cured merely by “yes” answers to formulaic questions. People v Fisher, 2024 NY Slip Op 02129, CtApp 4-23-24

Practice Point: A juror who believed defendant had followed her home and who so informed the jury during deliberations was “grossly unqualified” requiring a mistrial declaration.

 

, , ,

IT WAS NOT ERROR TO REMOVE THE DISRUPTIVE DEFENDANT FROM THE COURTROOM WITHOUT WARNING JUST PRIOR THE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE VERDICT AND THE POLLING OF THE JURY; APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE “REMOVAL” ISSUE ON DIRECT APPEAL (CT APP).

The Court of appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over an extensive dissenting opinion, reversing the grant of a writ of coram nobis, determined: (1) defendant was properly removed from court without warning before the verdict and the poll of the jurors; and (2) appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise defendant’s removal from the court on direct appeal. Removal was justified by the defendant’s acts of violence, verbal abuse and screaming in the courtroom:

We reject the prosecution’s claim that any error was de minimis based on the timing of defendant’s removal from the courtroom. There is no material stage of the proceeding that is any less consequential to a defendant’s right to be present. However, we agree that the trial court’s actions were appropriate under the unique circumstances of this case and in no way contrary to law.

A defendant has a constitutional right “to be present at all material stages of their criminal trial,” which includes the reading of the verdict and the polling of the jury … . Further, CPL 260.20 provides that a defendant must be present during the trial but may be removed if they are “disorderly and disruptive” such that the “trial cannot be carried on with [the defendant] in the courtroom [] if , after [they] have been warned by the court that [they] will be removed if [they] continue such conduct, [they] continue to engage in such conduct.” A court may dispense with the constitutional and statutory warnings when it is impracticable to give them … . … That was the case here. * * *

The Appellate Division erroneously concluded that the trial court violated defendant’s right to be present, and therefore incorrectly granted defendant’s writ of error coram nobis on the sole ground that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this meritless claim on direct appeal … . People v Dunton, 2024 NY Slip Op 02130, CtApp 4-23-24

Practice Point: In situations where warning a disruptive defendant is impractical, it is not error to remove the defendant from the courtroom without warning. Here defendant was removed just prior to the announcement of the verdict and the polling of the jurors, a material stage of the trial. Under the unique circumstances of this case defendant’s removal was not error.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY WARRANTING CIVIL MANAGEMENT, THE JUDGE CONFLATED TWO DIFFERENT LEGAL STANDARDS, ERRONEOUSLY FOUND THAT A MENTAL ABNORMALITY CANNOT BE PROVEN BY A CONSTELLATION OF CONDITIONS, DISEASES AND DISORDERS, AND IMPROPERLY RELIED ON OUTSIDE RESEARCH (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over an extensive dissenting opinion, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined several errors by the judge in this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding tainted the judge’s finding that the state had not proven respondent sex offender suffered from a mental abnormality and required civil management:

This article 10 proceeding arose out of respondent Richard V.’s 2002 conviction of rape in the first degree. In October 2001, respondent and an accomplice posed as plumbers to gain entry to the apartment of a female acquaintance. After the woman brought them inside, respondent subdued her with pepper spray, restrained her, repeatedly attacked her, threatened to kill her, and twice violently raped her.* * *

The sole issue at the bench trial was whether respondent suffers from a mental abnormality that “predisposes [him] to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense” resulting in “having serious difficulty [] controlling such conduct” … . At the second stage of an article 10 proceeding — the dispositional phase — the standard is whether a respondent has “such an inability to control his behavior that [he] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” …

There can be little dispute that Supreme Court conflated the applicable legal standards. * * *

… Supreme Court committed reversible error in finding that the State could not use a “constellation” of conditions, diseases, and disorders to establish that respondent has a mental abnormality. * * *

Supreme Court’s extensive usage of outside research blurred the lines between the roles of judge and counsel, depriving the parties of the opportunity to respond … . Matter of State of New York v Richard V., 2024 NY Slip Op 02158, First Dept 4-23-24

Practice Point: When a judge does outside research to inform the decision, the parties are deprived of the opportunity to respond.

 

,

THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD AN INDEPENDENT-SOURCE HEARING BEFORE ALLOWING THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AT TRIAL; HEARING AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, reversing the conviction and ordering an independent-source hearing and a new trial, found the record insufficient to determine whether the undercover officer had an independent source for his in-court identification of the defendant. Supreme Court, rather than holding an independent-source hearing, relied on the undercover officer’s prior testimony at the probable cause hearing. But the Court of Appeals found that testimony insufficient:

… [W]e address whether Supreme Court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for an independent source hearing and, instead, used an undercover police officer’s prior testimony at a probable cause hearing to render a determination on whether the officer had an independent source for his prospective in-court identification of defendant. … [T]he trial court erred in admitting the undercover officer’s in-court identification without a hearing record sufficient to support an independent source determination for the identification. * * *

… [At the probable cause hearing] the undercover testified that he had never interacted with the seller before the date in question and did not interact with the seller directly during the buy and bust. Although the undercover described the seller’s clothes, he did not provide a physical description of the seller. He did, however, testify about his close proximity to the seller—close enough to hear that the intermediary and the seller were having a conversation, but not their words. … [H]is testimony did not address how long the seller was within his sight or the nature of his confirmatory identification of defendant. People v Williams, 2024 NY Slip Op 02128, CtApp 4-23-24

Practice Point: Here the trial judge relied on the officer’s testimony at the probable cause hearing to demonstrate the officer had an independent source for his in-court identification of the defendant. The testimony was deemed too weak to demonstrate an independent source. New trial and independent-source hearing ordered.

 

,

BEFORE ADMITTING NON-EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A VIDEO, THE BASIS SHOULD BE DETERMINED OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, THE PARTY OFFERING THE WITNESS MUST DEMONSTRATE THE RELIABILITY OF THE WITNESS, AND THE NEED FOR THE TESTIMONY MUST BE DEMONSTRATED; IN ADDITION, A THOROUGH RECORD MUST BE CREATED AND THE JURY SHOULD BE INSTRUCTED THEY ARE FREE TO REJECT THE NON-EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reversing the Appellate Division, over a concurrence, determined the “non-eyewitness” who purported to identify the defendant in a video was not shown to be sufficiently familiar with the defendant and there was no showing that the jury faced an obstacle to making the identification:

This case concerns an increasingly prevalent issue: when may someone who is not an eyewitness to a crime testify to a jury that the defendant is the person depicted in a photo or video. We hold that such testimony may be admitted where the witness is sufficiently familiar with the defendant that their testimony would be reliable, and there is reason to believe the jury might require such assistance in making its independent assessment. Here, there was no showing that the proffered witness was sufficiently familiar with the defendant to render his testimony helpful, or that the jury faced an obstacle to making the identification that the witness’s testimony would have overcome. * * *

… [B]efore admitting lay non-eyewitness identification testimony, a court should inquire as to the basis of the witness’s familiarity outside the presence of the jury in a separate hearing or voir dire, as the court properly did here. The party offering the witness—in most cases the People—bears the burden of establishing that their testimony would both be helpful and necessary. … [I]t is incumbent on both parties to create a thorough record to aid the court in its determination and to allow for meaningful appellate review. … [I]t would be appropriate for the trial court to provide cautionary jury instructions, both at the time of the testimony and during the final charge, explaining to the jury that lay non-eyewitness identification testimony is mere opinion testimony that they may choose to accept or reject, and reminding the jurors that because they are the finders of fact, it is their opinion as to whether the defendant is depicted in the surveillance footage that matters … . People v Mosley, 2024 NY Slip Op 02125, CtApp 4-23-24

Practice Point: Here the Court of Appeals offers guidance on the use of non-eyewitness testimony to identify the defendant in a video. The reliability of the witness and the need for the testimony must be demonstrated outside the presence of the jury. A full record must be made. And the jury should be instructed they are free to reject the testimony.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 3 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PROHIBITS CONSIDERATION OF A NEW YORK JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSEMENT, CONSIDERATION OF A NEW JERSEY JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION IS NOT PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, determined that, although a New York juvenile delinquency adjudication under article 3 of the Family Court Act cannot be considered in a SORA risk-level determination, a New Jersey juvenile delinquency adjudication can be considered:

Although the express language in the Guidelines provides that a juvenile delinquency adjudication constitutes proof for the assessment of points under risk factors 8 and 9, in People v Campbell (98 AD3d 5), this Court held that a juvenile delinquency adjudication rendered under Family Court Act article 3 could not properly be considered in a SORA proceeding. * * *

… [T]his Court’s holding in Campbell does not preclude a SORA court from considering the defendant’s New Jersey adjudication. As discussed above, the prohibition in Campbell rested on the language of Family Court Act § 381.2 … . The Legislature, while protecting Family Court Act article 3 proceedings, has also identified the age of a sex offender at the time of the first sex offense to be a factor “indicative of high risk of repeat offense” to be considered under the Guidelines … , in addition to the nature of prior offenses … . While an adjudication or statements made to the court or an officer in a Family Court Act article 3 proceeding may not be used as proof at a SORA hearing, the People are not precluded from establishing the underlying conduct by other means … . The defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication was not rendered under New York’s Family Court Act article 3, and, thus, the provisions of the Family Court Act … do not apply to it. People v Hart, 2024 NY Slip Op 02071, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point: A New York juvenile delinquency adjudication cannot be considered in a SORA risk-level assessment because of a prohibition in the Family Court Act. Because the Family Court Act does not apply to a New Jersey juvenile delinquency determination, and because New Jersey does not have a similar prohibition, the New Jersey adjudication can be considered in a New York SORA risk-level assessment.

 

, ,

ACQUITTAL ON THE RAPE AND FORCIBLE TOUCHING CHARGES RENDERED THE “ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD” CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s “endangering the welfare of a child” conviction, determined defendant’s acquittal on the rape and forcible touching charges rendered the conviction “against the weight of the evidence:”

In conducting our weight of the evidence review, we consider the jury’s acquittal on other counts, and, under the circumstances of this case, find the jury’s acquittal on the other counts supportive of a reversal of the conviction on the count of endangering the welfare of a child … . Here, the defendant was charged with, but acquitted of, rape in the second degree, rape in the third degree, and forcible touching, and the alleged conduct that formed the basis of those charges was essentially the same alleged conduct that formed the basis of the charge of endangering the welfare of a child. Once the jury discredited the complainant’s testimony with respect to the charges of rape and forcible touching, the record was devoid of any evidence that the defendant “knowingly act[ed] in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old” … , as charged on the count of endangering the welfare of a child. People v Liston, 2024 NY Slip Op 02066, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point; Defendant was acquitted of the rape and forcible touching charges which were based on the same allegations as was the conviction on the “endangering the welfare of a child” charge. The conviction, therefore, was “against the weight of the evidence.”

 

A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER MUST CONSENT TO COMMUNITY SERVICE IMPOSED AS PART OF A SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying the sentence imposed by County Court, noted that the defendant youthful offender did not consent to community service as part of his sentence, as required by the Penal Law:

… [A] court may require a defendant, as a condition of a sentence of probation, to “[p]erform services for a public or not-for-profit corporation, association, institution[,] or agency” (Penal Law § 65.10[2][h]; cf. CPL 170.55). However, a community service condition “may only be imposed upon conviction of” certain types of crimes, including a “class E felony, or a youthful offender finding replacing any such conviction, where the defendant has consented to the amount and conditions of such service” … . …

… [T]he defendant correctly asserts that “the record is . . . devoid of any indication that [he] actually consented to the terms and conditions of community service imposed at the time of sentencing” … . The comments of defense counsel at sentencing did not provide the requisite consent, as defense counsel’s suggestion of community service was made in the context of arguing that a term of incarceration was unwarranted. In any event, even if defense counsel’s statements could be construed as providing the defendant’s “consent to the possibility of community service . . . , there is no proof whatsoever on the record that [the] defendant consented to the amount and conditions of the community service actually imposed by [the] County Court, which is what is specifically required by [Penal Law § 65.10(2)(h)]” … . People v Joseph D., 2024 NY Slip Op 02064, Second Dept 4-17-24

Practice Point: Penal Law 65.10 requires the consent of a youthful offender to community service as part of a sentence.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER; THE JURY’S REJECTION OF DEFENDANT’S “EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE” DEFENSE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REDUCED; THE STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S MENTAL ILLNESS AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s murder conviction to manslaughter first degree, over an extensive dissent, determined the jury’s determination that defendant failed to prove he was acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” (Penal Law § 125.25[1][a]), was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, who suffered from mental illness, had been involuntarily committed to to a medical facility. The victim, who was beaten and strangled, allegedly sexually assaulted defendant in the shower. The dissent argued defense counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce evidence of defendant’s mental illness in support of the motion to suppress statements defendant made to a detective:

… [W]e find that the jury’s determination that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” (Penal Law § 125.25[1][a]) when he killed the victim was against the weight of the evidence. The defendant’s state of mind is a subjective question, and the existence of a reasonable excuse is an objective question … . The first element, the “subjective element[,] ‘focuses on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime and requires sufficient evidence that the defendant’s conduct was actually influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance'” … . The second element requires an objective determination as to whether there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance, and “[w]hether such a reasonable explanation or excuse exists must be determined by viewing the subjective mental condition of the defendant and the external circumstances as the defendant perceived them to be at the time, ‘however inaccurate that perception may have been'” … .

From the dissent:

At the suppression hearing, the People presented the testimony of the detective who had interviewed the defendant. The defense did not present any evidence. Defense counsel was well aware of the … voluminous psychiatric documentation concerning the defendant’s mental illness. However, defense counsel failed to move to admit into evidence any of these records. Rather, in support of the motion to suppress, defense counsel merely presented arguments that the defendant’s mental state at the time that the Miranda warnings were administered precluded the admissibility of his statements to the detective. People v Andrews, 2024 NY Slip Op 01935, Second Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: Here, the appellate court determined the jury’s rejection of defendant’s “extreme emotional disturbance” affirmative defense was against the weight of the evidence. The murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter first degree.

 

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