You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

Records Sealed Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 160.50 Can Be Unsealed in “Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding Pursuant to Mental Health Law

In a proceeding which determined respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, the court ordered the unsealing of records related to three rapes and two robberies for which respondent was indicted in 1968.  The convictions of one count of rape and one count of robbery had been overturned because respondent was found to have been incompetent at the time he pled guilty. In finding the records of the overturned convictions were properly unsealed, the First Department determined that Mental Health Law 10.08 (c), which provides that the State is entitled to all records relating to the respondent’s commission or alleged commission of a sex offense, supersedes Criminal Procedure Law 160.50, which requires that the record of a criminal proceeding that is terminated in favor of the accused be sealed.  State v John S., 2013 NY Slip Op 01622, 9530, 30051/09m 1st Dept. 3-14-13

 

, ,

Taser or Stun Gun Is Not a “Dangerous Instrument” for Purposes of Burglary and Menacing Statutes; Court Must Articulate Specific Reasons for Shackling Defendant During Trial

Proof that the defendant threatened the complainant with a taser or stun gun was legally insufficient to establish the “dangerous instrument” element of burglary in the first degree and menacing in the second degree.  Although the Second Department determined it was harmless error, the Court also noted that it was error to shackle the defendant and put black bunting around the defense table, without also putting black bunting around the prosecution table. The jury, in that circumstance, may have inferred the bunting was designed to hide shackles.  “The federal constitution ‘forbids the use of visible shackles … unless that use is justified by an essential state interest … specific to the defendant on trial’ …”.  County Court, in this instance, failed to articulate on the record an adequate justification individualized to the defendant for the shackling … .  People v Morillo, 2013 NY Slip Op 01572, 2010-11438, Ind No 2052/09, 2nd Dept. 5-13-13

 

, ,

Guilty Plea Precludes Appeal of Statutory Speedy Trial Violation But Not Constitutional Speedy Trial Violation

By pleading guilty a defendant forfeits appellate review of a claim that his statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 30.30 was violated. However, a defendant’s constitutional speedy trial claim survives both a guilty plea and a waiver of the right to appeal. People v Franco, 2013 NY Slip Op 01570, 2009-10119, Ind No 10795/07, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

,

Court Participation in Testimony Read-Back Is Error

Although the Second Department concluded it was harmless error, the Court noted that the trial court erred when it participated in reading back certain trial testimony to the jury.  The Court wrote:  “We take this opportunity to emphasize that ‘[w]hen, during a read-back of testimony, a trial judge assumes the role of a witness or inquiring counsel, he or she may unwittingly and erroneously convey to [the] jury that the court is aligned with the party or counsel whose role the court has assumed in the read-back’…”.  People v Facey, 2012 NY Slip Op 01568, 2012-11829, Ind No 9839/08, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

,

Strip Search After Controlled Buy Upheld

A warrantless search of “every part of [defendant’s] vehicle” as well as a strip search of the defendant was upheld by the Third Department.  The search of the vehicle was justified by the same evidence which provided probable cause for the arrest (a controlled drug purchase by a confidential informant).  And the strip search was justified by the failure to find narcotics or buy money in the preliminary vehicle search. “[A] strip search must be founded on a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing evidence underneath clothing and the search must be conducted in a reasonable manner… Some of the factors that may be considered in determining the reasonableness of such a search are the circumstances of the arrest, the defendant’s nervousness or unusual conduct, tips from informants, and ‘an itinerary suggestive of wrongdoing’…”.  People v Anderson, 104220, 104447, 3rd Dept. 3-7-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION, SUPPRESS, SEARCH

,

“Plain View” Doctrine Does Not Require Certainty Seized Item Is Contraband

In affirming the denial of a suppression motion, the First Department determined that the chain of events observed by the arresting officer before the stop of defendant’s vehicle led to the proper application of the “plain view” doctrine for the seizure of contraband.  Defendant was seen going into a store (which was a frequent target of thieves) with a large empty bag and coming out of the store with the bag visibly heavier and fuller.  After a vehicle stop (the stop was not contested or discussed in the decision), the defendant gave answers to questions that contradicted what the officer had observed and the officer saw a large amount of over-the-counter medications in the bag.  In finding the seizure of the bag justified under the “plain view” doctrine, the Court said:  “The plain view doctrine does not require certainty or near certainty as to the incriminating nature of the items.  Instead, it ‘merely requires that the facts available to the officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief …that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false.  A practical, nontechnical probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required’ …”.  People v Taylor, 9439, 6265/10, 1st Dept. 3-7-13​

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESS, SEARCH

,

Failure to Request Court-Permission to Re-Present Charges to a Grand Jury Is Reversible Error Which Survives a Guilty Plea

The First Department held that as long as the prosecutor presents evidence regarding potential charges to a grand jury, court-permission to re-present the charges is required.  “The critical question is whether the grand jury failed to indict after a full presentation of the case.”  The fact that the prosecutor “withdrew” the charges from the grand jury’s consideration, or allowed the grand jury to vote to “take no affirmative action” on them, is of no consequence.  The prosecutor’s failure to request and receive court-permission to re-present is a reversible error which survives a guilty plea.  People v Dinkins, 8603, 1443/10, 1st Dept. 3-5-13

 

Mistrial on Motion by Prosecution Precluded Retrial.

The prosecution moved for a mistrial based on defense counsel’s improper questioning of a witness in defiance of the court’s instructions.  The court granted the mistrial.  The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Freedman, determined that the defendant could not be retried.  “When the court declares a mistrial on the prosecution’s motion and over the defendant’s objection, a retrial is precluded unless ‘there is a manifest necessity for [the mistrial], or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated’ …”  The First Department felt that defense counsel’s conduct, while blameworthy, could have been adequate addressed by alternative measures and, therefore, there was not a sufficient basis in the record for a mistrial.  Matter of Morris vs. Livote, 4334/10, 9012-5107, First Dept. 2-21-13

double jeopardy

,

SORA Hearing Procedure.

In this case, the Second Department clearly laid out the acceptable sources of information, the applicable standards of proof, and the criteria for departure from the presumptive level in a SORA hearing. People vs Lacewell, 2008-07498, Second Dept. 2-20-13

 

,

Witness Impeached With Attorney’s Statements.

“The Supreme Court properly permitted the People to impeach the testimony of a defense witness with a statement made by that witness’s former counsel at a plea proceeding… .The statement, which differed from the witness’s trial testimony, reasonably appeared to be attributable to the witness … “.  People vs Davis, 2010-11219, Ind. No. 921/09 Second Dept. 2-20-13

 

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