You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S VACATION OF DEFENDANT’S FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED; THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE “RELISHING THE INFLICTION OF EXTREME PAIN” ELEMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over two concurring opinions, affirmed the appellate division’s vacation of the defendant’s first degree murder conviction. The appellate division concluded two elements of first degree murder had not been proven: (1) a “course of conduct” which inflicted extreme physical pain; and (2) defendant’s “relishing” the infliction of extreme physical pain upon the victim. The majority agreed with the People that the “course of conduct” element had been proven. But the majority agreed with the appellate division that the “relishing the infliction of extreme pain” element was not proven. The victim was attacked and stabbed multiple times by a group of gang members, including defendant. Defendant inflicted the fatal stab wound to the victim’s neck which caused him to bleed to death. The stab wounds inflicted by others in the gang were deemed “superficial:”

A rational jury could have concluded that [the victim’s] other wounds, inflicted pursuant to a course of conduct during which [the victim] was dragged from the store to the street, and then while on the ground subjected to several stab wounds of varying degrees from multiple assailants, caused him extreme physical pain before his death. * * *

The People’s evidence with respect to this mens rea element consisted of testimony that, shortly after attacking [the victim], defendant stated in a boastful tone that [the victim] was “not gonna eat for a good long time because [defendant] hit him in the neck.” The People also presented evidence that defendant sought out [gang]  leadership after the attack to claim responsibility for stabbing [the victim] in the neck.

This evidence demonstrates, at most, that defendant took pride in having killed [the victim], not that he took pleasure in causing [the victim] extreme physical pain before his death. The statute is clear that the defendant must relish or take pleasure in inflicting extreme physical pain, not simply in killing the victim … . People v Estrella, 2024 NY Slip Op 01499, CtApp 3-19-24

Practice Point: The “course of conduct” to inflict extreme pain and the “relishing” the infliction of extreme pain elements of first degree murder explained and debated. Here the “relishing” element was not proven.

 

, ,

IT WAS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD WHETHER THE JUDGE IMPROPERLY DEEMED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS TO HAVE BEEN WAIVED BY THE PLEA, OR WHETHER THE JUDGE REJECTED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS AFTER CONSIDERING IT AS REQUIRED; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding the matter for consideration of youthful offender status, determined it was not clear from the record whether the judge improperly denied youthful offender status because it has been waived by the plea or whether youthful offender status had been considered and rejected:

Although the court stated at sentencing that it would not grant defendant youthful offender status with regard to Indictment Nos. 3801/16 and 583/17, “there is nothing in the record to indicate that it actually independently considered youthful offender treatment,” as required by CPL 720.20(1) and People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]), “instead of denying such treatment because it was not part of the plea agreement” … . While a court need not set forth its reasons for denying youthful offender treatment … , it is still required to “clarify expressly whether it had ‘actually consider[ed] youthful offender treatment’ or whether it had improperly ‘ruled it out on the ground that it had been waived as part of defendant’s negotiated plea'” … . Because the court did not satisfy this obligation, we remand the matter for a determination of whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment as to the promoting prison contraband and attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance convictions. People v J.G., 2024 NY Slip Op 01520, First Dept 3-19-24

Practice Point: In rejecting youthful offender status, the judge need not give the reasons but the record must reflect the judge considered the issue and did not improperly consider it waived by the plea.

 

, ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL WITH ELEVEN JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL ON ALL COUNTS WITHOUT INQUIRING WHETHER A VERDICT HAD BEEN REACHED ON ANY OF THE COUNTS; RETRIAL OF THIS MURDER CASE PROHIBITED ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, granting petitioner’s request for a writ of prohibition, determined retrial of this murder case was prohibited on double jeopardy grounds. Apparently one juror (juror number five) had done independent research on the charge of murder in the second degree and jurors had complained about racial tension in the jury room, implicating the same juror. There was an indication that jurors had agreed on verdicts for five of six charges. Petitioner asked to continue the trial with 11 jurors, which requires the judge’s consent. The judge denied the request. Defense counsel asked that the jury be polled on the counts for which verdicts had apparently been reached. The judge refused the request and declared a mistrial:

… [T]he People have not met their burden of demonstrating that the declaration of a mistrial was manifestly necessary. Assuming, arguendo, that juror number five was grossly unqualified to continue serving, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial without considering other alternatives. Petitioner expressed his desire to waive trial by a jury of 12 individuals and proceed with the remaining 11 jurors, an option that has been endorsed by the Court of Appeals “if circumstances arise that warrant such a request” … . Although the court has discretion to deny a request to proceed with 11 jurors—as the court did here—that discretion is limited … . The record here is devoid of evidence that petitioner’s request was not tendered in good faith, that the request was ” ‘a stratagem to procure an otherwise impermissible procedural advantage’ ” … , or that deliberation with 11 jurors could not “produce a fair verdict” … . Under the circumstances presented, as urged by defense counsel, “it would have been appropriate to poll the remainder of the jurors to ascertain whether they could render an impartial verdict” … .

Moreover, “it was an abuse of discretion to have declared a mistrial on all of the counts in the indictment without inquiring whether a decision had been reached on any of the charges” … . Although there was not “overwhelming evidence” that a partial verdict had been reached … , the jury’s note asking for guidance on next steps “[i]f we have a decision on five counts but not on one of them” presented more than a mere inference that the jury may have reached a partial verdict, and the subsequent communications with the jury did not indicate otherwise … . Under these circumstances, the court was required to make an inquiry “as to whether a verdict had been reached on any of the counts . . . before declaring a mistrial over the petitioner’s objection” … .

On this record, “[n]either physical impossibility to proceed nor manifest necessity to declare a mistrial as to the entire indictment has been demonstrated” … because the court failed “to obtain enough information” whether a mistrial was actually necessary as to all counts … . Matter of Shipmon v Moran, 2024 NY Slip Op 01424, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: Under these facts, it was an abuse of discretion to deny petitioner’s request to continue the trial with 11 jurors. Retrial prohibited on double jeopardy grounds.

Practice Point: Under these facts, it was an abuse of discretion to fail to inquire whether the jury had reached a verdict on any counts. Retrial prohibited on double jeopardy grounds.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF ALL THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF THE GUILTY PLEA, INCLUDING THE FINE; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s conviction to driving while ability impaired by drugs, determined the sentencing judge did not inform defendant of the direct consequences of the guilty  plea:

“It is well settled that, in order for a plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, a defendant must be advised of the direct consequences of that plea” … . “The direct consequences of a plea—those whose omission from a plea colloquy makes the plea per se invalid—are essentially the core components of a defendant’s sentence: a term of probation or imprisonment, a term of postrelease supervision, a fine” … , and the failure to advise a defendant at the time of the guilty plea of all of the potential direct consequence of that plea “requires that [the] plea be vacated” … . Here, the court advised defendant that, upon a violation of interim probation, he could be sentenced “to anything allowable by law which . . . is up to two and a third to seven years in the department of corrections,” but failed to advise him of any other potential direct consequences of the plea, including a fine (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]). We note that defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is not encompassed in an appeal waiver … , and that preservation of defendant’s contention was not required under the circumstances of this case inasmuch as “defendant did not have sufficient knowledge of the terms of the plea at the plea allocution and, when later advised, did not have sufficient opportunity to move to withdraw [his] plea” … . People v Abraham, 2024 NY Slip Op 01419, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: If a judge fails to inform a defendant of the direct consequences of a guilty plea, including the fine, the plea must be vacated.

 

,

REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A BREATH TEST IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on one count of the indictment, noted that “refusal to submit to a breath test” is not a criminal offense:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of … refusal to submit to a breath test (§ 1194 [1] [b]). As defendant contends and the People correctly concede, refusal to submit to a breath test mandated by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (1) (b) “is not a cognizable offense for which a person may be charged or convicted in a criminal court” … . Inasmuch as defendant was convicted by the jury of the nonexistent offense of refusal to submit to a breath test, we modify the judgment by reversing that part convicting him of count 3 of the indictment and dismissing that count … . People v Khadka, 2024 NY Slip Op 01402, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: Here in this DWI case, the defendant was convicted of refusing to submit to a breath test, which is not a criminal offense. Conviction reversed.

 

, , ,

THE SUPPRESSION COURT APPLIED THE WRONG “DEBOUR” LEVEL TO THE INITIAL INQUIRY BY THE OFFICER WHO APPROACHED DEFENDANT AND REQUESTED THAT HE STEP OUT OF THE CAR; BECAUSE THE SUPPRESSION ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RULED UPON UNDER THE CORRECT “DEBOUR” STANDARD, THE APPELLATE COURT COULD NOT CONSIDER THE ISSUE AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CORRECT “DEBOUR” STANDARD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reserving decision, remitted the matter for another ruling on defendant’s suppression motion. The trial judge determined that the police officer conducted a level one (DeBour) inquiry when he ordered the defendant out of the car. In fact, the officer conducted a level three inquiry which required reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Because the ruling on defendant’s suppression motion was based upon the wrong standard, the matter was remitted for a ruling under the correct standard:

… [T]he patrol lieutenant engaged in a level three intrusion under De Bour when he ordered the occupants out of the vehicle … . Although an “officer’s initial approach of [a person] and request for identification [may constitute] a permissible level one encounter” under De Bour, it is well established that an “officer’s request that [a person] exit [a] parked vehicle elevate[s] the situation to a level three encounter under De Bour” and requires reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot … .

Because the court erroneously concluded that the patrol lieutenant engaged in only a level one intrusion when he directed defendant to step out of the vehicle, the court had no occasion to consider whether the patrol lieutenant had reasonable suspicion justifying that directive … . Although the People concede that the patrol lieutenant lacked reasonable suspicion, we are precluded “from reviewing an issue that . . . was not decided by the trial court” … . People v Taylor, 2024 NY Slip Op 01449, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: When the police officer approached defendant and asked defendant to get out of the car, the officer was conducting a level three DeBour inquiry which required reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The suppression judge erroneously applied the criteria for a level one inquiry and denied suppression. Because the correct suppression issue was never ruled upon, the appellate court was forced to remit the matter for a ruling under the correct DeBour standard.

 

PROMOTING PROSTITUTION CONVICTIONS REVERSED BECAUSE THE PROMOTING PROSTITUTION COUNTS ARE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF SEX TRAFFICKING (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department dismissed the “promoting prostitution” counts of the indictment as inclusory concurrent counts of sex trafficking:

We note … that count 15 of the indictment, charging defendant with promoting prostitution in the second degree (Penal Law § 230.30 [1]), is an inclusory concurrent count of sex trafficking as charged in counts 12, 13, and 14 (§ 230.34 [5] [a], [c], [h]; see generally CPL 1.20 [37]; 300.30 [4]). Similarly, count 24 of the indictment, charging defendant with promoting prostitution in the second degree, is an inclusory concurrent count of sex trafficking as charged in counts 21, 22, and 23. We therefore conclude that counts 15 and 24 must be dismissed as a matter of law because defendant was found guilty of counts 12 through 14 and 21 through 23, and “a verdict of guilty upon the greater [counts] is deemed a dismissal of every lesser [inclusory concurrent count]” … . People v Spencer, 2024 NY Slip Op 01448, Fourth Dept 3-15-25

Practice Point: If a defendant is convicted of sex trafficking and promoting prostitution, the promoting prostitution convictions must be reversed as inclusory concurrent counts of sex trafficking.

 

,

BURGLARY SECOND DEGREE AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY IS NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE UNDER SORA; DEFENDANT’S SEX OFFENDER ADJUDICATION VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s sex offender adjudication, noted that burglary second degree as a sexually motivated felony is not a registrable sex offense on SORA:

As the People concede, burglary in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony is not a registrable sex offense under Sora (see People v Conyers, 212 AD3d 417, 418 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 39 NY3d 1110 [2023]; People v Simmons, 203 AD3d 106, 111-112 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1035 [2022]). We therefore modify the judgment as indicated. People v Burgos, 2024 NY Slip Op 01255, First Dept 3-7-24

Practice Point: Burglary second as a sexually motivated felony is not a registrable offense under SORA.

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE CASE BECAUSE THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” WITH THE SUBJECT CHILDREN WITHIN THE MEANING OF FAMILY COURT ACT 812 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this family offense case because the appellant did not have an “intimate relationship” with the subject children within the meaning of Family Court Act 812:

The “Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, constrained to exercise only those powers granted to it by the State Constitution or by statute” … . Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1), the Family Court’s jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain prescribed acts that occur “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household” … . “[M]embers of the same family or household” include, among others, “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … . “Expressly excluded from the ambit of ‘intimate relationship’ are ‘casual acquaintance[s]’ and ‘ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts'” … . “Beyond those delineated exclusions, what qualifies as an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is determined on a case-by-case basis, and the factors a court may consider include ‘the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship'” … .

Here, the appellant and the subject children have no direct relationship, and the appellant was only connected to the subject children through her children, who were the half-siblings of three of the subject children. The appellant and the subject children do not reside together and there was no evidence that they have any direct interaction with each other. Accordingly, there is no “intimate relationship” between the appellant and the subject children within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) … . Matter of Watson v Brown, 2024 NY Slip Op 01191, Second Dept 3-6-24

Practice Point: In order for Family Court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a family offense proceeding, the respondent must have an “intimate relationship” with the victims within the meaning of Family Court Act 812. The criteria for an “intimate relationship,” which was absent here, are explained in some detail.

 

, , ,

THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE APPELLANT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING VALIDLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court in this family offense proceeding, determined the record was insufficient to conclude the appellant had validly waived his right to counsel:

A party in a Family Court Act article 8 proceeding has the right to be represented by counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][ii] …). That party, however, may waive the right to counsel, provided that the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . To ensure a valid waiver, the court must conduct a “searching inquiry” of that party … . While there is no rigid formula to be followed in such an inquiry, and the approach is a flexible one … , the record must demonstrate that the party “‘was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel'” … .

Here, the record is inadequate to demonstrate that the appellant validly waived his right to counsel … . The deprivation of a party’s right to counsel guaranteed by Family Court Act § 262 requires reversal without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party’s position … . Matter of Mendez-Emmanuel v Emmanuel, 2024 NY Slip Op 01180, Second Dept 3-6-24

Practice Point: In a family offense proceeding the respondent has a right to counsel. If the record doesn’t demonstrate a valid waiver of the right to counsel, a new hearing will be ordered.

 

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