You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THE SEARCH OF A CAR AFTER DEFENDANT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CAR CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST; SUPPRESSION GRANTED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the search of defendant’s car was not a valid search incident to arrest because defendant and the driver had already been removed from the car. The People elected not to rely on the appeal waiver because of the erroneous suppression ruling:

The court improperly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the PCP recovered from the vehicle. As the People concede, the search of the vehicle could not be justified as a search incident to arrest because, at the time of the search, defendant and the driver had already been removed from the car and were in handcuffs. Anything inside of the car was no longer in defendant’s grabbable area or immediate control, and the People failed to demonstrate the existence of exigent circumstances to justify the search … . People v Ortiz, 2024 NY Slip Op 00745, First Dept 2-13-24

Practice Point: Once a defendant has been removed from a car, a search of the car cannot be a search incident to arrest because the interior of the car is no longer in defendant’s grabbable area or immediate control.

 

,

THE CONSOLIDATED TRIAL OF TWO SEPARATE CRIMINAL TRANSACTIONS, COUPLED WITH THE ABSENCE OF LIMITING JURY INSTRUCTIONS, CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged comprehensive opinion by Justice Rodriguez, over a two-justice comprehensive concurring opinion, determined that the consolidated trial of two separate criminal transactions, without appropriate limiting jury instructions, was reversible error:

The first indictment charged defendant with, among other counts, attempted murder. In relation to the first indictment, no gun was recovered, the alleged victim was not injured, and the evidence showed that there was at least some degree of animus between defendant and the alleged victim. The defense theory was thus that the discharged gun was in fact the victim’s. The second indictment, concerning an incident nearly six months later at a different location, charged defendant with possession of a firearm that was recovered on the person of his companion. The principal evidence supporting the second indictment was a set of suggestive jail phone call recordings.

Consolidated trial of indictments like the two at issue here is not necessarily error. However, defendant suffered impermissible prejudice as a result of (1) the nature and quantum of the evidence presented and (2) the specific respective theories of the prosecution and the defense. Supreme Court thus abused its discretion and committed error in trying the indictments together.

Although prejudice may in general be adequately ameliorated by appropriate limiting instructions, the jury received no such instruction here. People v Davis, 2024 NY Slip Op 00746, First Dept 2-13-24

Practice Point: This comprehensive majority opinion and and the comprehensive concurring opinion cannot be fairly summarized here. Consult this opinion for the law associated with consolidation of indictments for trial.

 

,

THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY THE OFFICER’S ENTRY OF THE RESIDENCE AND SEIZURE OF A SWITCHBLADE; SWITCHBLADE AND STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SWITCHBLADE SUPPRESSED; IN ADDITION, AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined (1) the search of defendant’s premises and the seizure of switchblade was not justified by the emergency exception to the warrant requirement and (2) the criminal possession of a weapon conviction must be dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of criminal possession of a weapon third:

The court reasoned that the officer’s entry into defendant’s residence was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a warrantless search where ” ‘(1) the police . . . have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief [is] grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search [is] not . . . primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there [is] some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched’ ” … . … [T]he first and third elements of the emergency exception were not present at the time the officer entered defendant’s residence because defendant had been secured prior to that time and the officer who conducted the search testified that he did not believe there was anyone else in the residence at that time … .

We therefore modify the judgment by granting that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress the switchblade knife and defendant’s statements relating to the switchblade knife, reversing that part of the judgment convicting defendant of CPW in the third degree as it relates to the switchblade knife, and dismissing count 4 of the indictment … . People v Lee, 2024 NY Slip Op 00718, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: At the time the officer entered defendant’s residence and seized a switchblade all parties had been secured and removed from the residence. The emergency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply.

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION BUT A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR ALLOWING PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE TO COME IN WITHOUT A STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department majority affirmed defendant’s conviction, but a two-justice dissent argument defense counsel allowed prejudicial evidence to come in without any strategic justification:

From the dissent:

Meaningful representation is “reasonable competence, not perfect representation” … . “However it is elementary that the right to effective representation includes the right to assistance by an attorney who has taken the time to review and prepare both the law and the facts relevant to the defense . . . and who is familiar with, and able to employ at trial basic principles of criminal law and procedure” … . “Whether counsel has adequately performed these functions is necessarily a question of degree, in which cumulative errors particularly on basic points essential to the defense, are often found to be determinative” … .

Here, when the People sought to introduce the order of protection in evidence, defense counsel failed to seek removal of the portion of that order stating the crimes for which defendant had previously been convicted, despite the fact that Supreme Court previously denied the People’s Sandoval application. Moreover, as a direct result of defense counsel’s open-ended questions, a witness stated during cross-examination that defendant was previously incarcerated. Most critically, however, defense counsel’s open-ended questioning of the victim during cross-examination revealed that defendant had, on a prior occasion, broken into her home through the basement window. In this prosecution for, inter alia, burglary in the first degree, we cannot foresee evidence being more prejudicial than testimony elicited by his own counsel that defendant previously committed the same criminal act against the same victim. People v Howard, 2024 NY Slip Op 00711, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: The majority affirmed, but two dissenting judges argued defense counsel unnecessarily put evidence which was highly prejudicial to his client before the jury.

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN INVENTORY LIST WAS CREATED FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE SEARCH WAS A VALID “INVENTORY SEARCH” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People did not prove the search of a car which turned up a firearm and marijuana was a valid “inventory search:”

The People failed to carry their initial burden of establishing a valid inventory search of defendant’s vehicle. Court of Appeals precedent “requires that a police officer prepare a meaningful inventory of the contents of an accused’s car” … . Although the People failed to establish that the officers prepared the prescribed inventory search form, such failure is considered a mere “technical defect” and “is not fatal to the establishment of a valid search as long as (1) the search, in accordance with the ‘standardized procedure,’ is designed to produce an inventory and (2) the search results are fully recorded in a usable format” … . Here, the People failed on this latter point, since there was no evidence offered to show that the officers created the “hallmark of an inventory search: a meaningful inventory list” … . * * *

Ultimately, no form, list, or usable record was produced before the hearing court, and there is otherwise no basis on which to conclude that an inventory list or record of the search results was ever created, either during the search or after its completion. People v Cabrera, 2024 NY Slip Op 00685, First Dept 2-8-24

Practice Point: In order to prove items were seized from a car pursuant to a valid “inventory search,” some sort of inventory list must have been created during the search.

 

, , ,

RE-READING THE ORIGINAL JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT ADDRESS THE CONFUSION EXPRESSED IN THE NOTE FROM THE JURY; IN ADDITION, THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE INITIAL DETERMINATION WHETHER A WITNESS WAS QUALIFIED TO OFFER EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined the judge’s response to a jury note was inadequate and the judge did not make the required initial determination that a witness was qualified to offer expert-opinion evidence on the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS). The jury wanted to know whether a guilty verdict required that the three alleged acts of sexual abuse take place within the three-month period described in the indictment. The answer was “es,” but the judge merely re-read the original charge about which the jury was confused. With respect to the CSAAS witness, the judge left it up to the jury to decide whether she was qualified as an expert:

… [T]he jury had already been provided with a complete written copy of the court’s original instructions for its reference during deliberations. Under these circumstances, County Court’s response to the jury’s inquiry was not meaningful, as it did nothing to clarify the very specific point on which the jury was confused. “[I]n our view, this is one of those rare cases where interest of justice review is warranted. Where the court fails to give information requested upon a vital point no appellate court may disregard the error” … . * * *

Although “[t]he court is not required to explicitly declare a witness an expert before permitting [expert] testimony” … , “the trial court is vested with the initial responsibility of evaluating whether an expert possesses the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered is reliable” … . Here, County Court abdicated its responsibility to make the initial determination as to whether [the witness] qualified as an expert. People v Goff, 2024 NY Slip Op 00656, Third Dept 2-8-24

Practice Point: A response to a jury note must clarify the confusion expressed in the note. Here, re-reading the original instruction was not sufficient.

Practice Point: Although a judge is not required to explicitly declare a witness an expert, the judge must make the initial determination whether the witness is qualified to offer reliable testimony.

 

, , ,

THE DEFENSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO EXPRESSED SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT BEING ABLE SERVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE HER ULTIMATE STATEMENT SHE COULD DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO SERVE; THE NEW CPL ARTICLE 245 DISCOVERY STATUTES IMPOSE NEW BURDENS ON THE PEOPLE ENCOMPASSING ROSARIO AND BRADY MATERIAL AND EXTENDING TO DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NOT IN THE PEOPLE’S POSSESSION, EVEN WHERE THE DEFENSE CAN ACCESS THOSE DOCUMENTS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, offered important, substantial discussions of (1) how to handle a juror who expresses doubt about the ability to serve on the jury, and (2) the new, much broader and far-reaching disclosure requirements imposed upon the People by the CPL Article 245. The juror expressed doubt about her ability to serve because of her family obligations, her indecisiveness and her inability to follow the orders and instructions of the court. Ultimately when asked if she thought she could do what is necessary to be a juror, she said “yes.” The Fourth Department held the defense challenge to the juror should not have been denied. On the CPL Article 245 issue, the Fourth Department explained that the statute goes far beyond the old, pre-statute, criteria for turning over Rosario and Brady material, to include collecting and turning over discovery from agencies outside the prosecutor’s office, even if the defendant could gain access to those that discovery him or herself: The Fourth Department held the prosecutor committed numerous violations of CPL Article 245 and left it to the judge in the next trial to impose sanctions:

… [T]he prospective juror never stated, unequivocally or otherwise, that she would follow the court’s instructions and apply the law to the facts. Nor did she state that her child care concerns had been alleviated such that she could devote her undivided attention to the trial.

Just as a “general statement of impartiality that does not explicitly address the specific cause of the preexisting bias is not sufficient” … , a general statement from a prospective juror that they can do what it takes to be a juror is not sufficient to rehabilitate the prospective juror where, as here, the prospective juror had previously offered specific reasons for being unable to serve impartially. * * *

Although transcripts that are not in the People’s possession and control are not subject to Brady and Rosario disclosure requirements … , that fact is of no moment for purposes of CPL 245.20. Even where documents are “beyond the prosecutor’s control under Rosario and constructive possession under CPL 245.20 (2), the presumption of openness, … the duty to maintain the flow of information … , the continuing duty to disclose … , and, perhaps most importantly, the goals of article 245 require that when the prosecutor becomes aware [after making the requisite reasonable inquiries] that an agency outside their control holds information that relates to the subject matter of the case, best practice dictates that the People take steps . . . to obtain those records notwithstanding the fact [that] the information may be available to the defendant by equivalent process” … . People v Heverly, 2024 NY Slip Op 00524, Fourth Dept 2-2-24

Practice Point; A juror who expresses serious doubts about being able to serve, doubts which are not addressed by further questioning, should be excluded, even if the juror ultimately states he or she can do what is necessary to serve.

Practice Point: CPL Article 245 has drastically expanded the burden on the People to timely turn over discovery, including Rosario and Brady material and documents which are not in the People’s possession, even where the defense also has access to those documents. The is an important discussion of the new criminal discovery rules which should be required reading for defense counsel, prosecutors and judges.

 

,

AN OFFICER’S OBSERVATION OF DEFENDANT’S CAR FOLLOWING ANOTHER CAR TOO CLOSELY (A TRAFFIC INFRACTION) PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A TRAFFIC STOP, EVEN IF THERE WERE OTHER MOTIVATIONS FOR THE STOP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress in this traffic stop case should not have been granted. The traffic stop was based upon the deputy sheriff’s observation of defendant’s car less than one car length from the car in front while both cars were going 65 mph, which constitutes a traffic infraction (following too closely). The Fourth Department noted that a traffic infraction provides probable cause for traffic stop, even if the officer has another motive for the stop (apparently the case here):

The deputy, having personally observed defendant violate Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a), thus had probable cause to stop defendant’s vehicle … .

… [T]o the extent the court’s decision also found the stop unlawful on the basis that it was pretextual, that was error. It is well settled that ” ‘where a police officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of an automobile has committed a traffic violation, a stop does not violate [the state or federal constitutions, and] . . . neither the primary motivation of the officer nor a determination of what a reasonable traffic officer would have done under the circumstances is relevant’ ” … . In light of the deputy having personally observed defendant commit a traffic violation, the stop was properly based upon probable cause, and the deputy’s other motivations in stopping the vehicle, if any, were irrelevant to determining whether the stop was lawful … . People v Williams, 2024 NY Slip Op 00581, Fourth Dept 2-2-24

Practice Point: If a police officer observes a driver commit a traffic infraction (here following too closely), the officer has probable cause to stop the car, even if the officer has other motivations for the stop.

 

,

ALLEGATIONS THAT RESPONDENT INSTALLED SOFTWARE ON PETITIONER’S COMPUTER ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO CONTROL THE COMPUTER REMOTELY, AND ALLEGATIONS RESPONDENT MADE PHONE CALLS TO PETITIONER INTENDED TO BE THREATENING, SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE FAMILY OFFENSES OF HARASSMENT AND STALKING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petition sufficiently alleged harassment and stalking family offeses based upon allegations respondent, petitioner’s estranged husband, installed software on petitioner’s computer allowing him to control the computer remotely, and made phone calls to petitioner intended to be threatening:

… [P]etitioner alleged that respondent installed spyware on her Apple laptop computer and that petitioner first noticed in mid-April 2021 that her username had been changed to “Creep” and that all documents related to the divorce proceedings between the parties had been deleted. Petitioner further alleged that, after taking the laptop to a computer store to have the laptop reset, she noticed about a week later that the laptop began showing the matrimonial files, which then disappeared again. Petitioner alleged that respondent was again controlling her laptop remotely. Petitioner also alleged a series of other related incidents. For example, she noticed in late April 2021 that her iPhone password had changed; she received a “spoofed” text message in early May 2021 and she discovered about a day later that respondent had accessed her Dropbox account; and she received another alarming or annoying text message in mid-May 2021 that referred to respondent’s pet name for her. Petitioner thus alleged more than an isolated incident and, upon ” ‘[l]iberally construing the allegations of the [second] family offense petition and giving it the benefit of every possible favorable inference,’ ” we conclude that the second petition alleges acts that, if committed by respondent, would constitute the family offense of harassment in the second degree … . Matter of Dhir v Winslow, 2024 NY Slip Op 00531, Fourth Dept 2-2-24

Practice Point: Remotely controlling petitioner’s computer and making phone calls intended to be threatening may constitute the family offenses of harassment and stalking.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO READ THE NOTE FROM THE JURY VERBATIM WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined the judge committed a mode of proceedings error by paraphrasing the note from the jury instead of reading it verbatim:

The jury note … stated … “[w]e, the Jury, request: to hear the read-back of [a restaurant worker’s] cross-examination where she is asked how many times she had seen the defendant at the restaurant. She indicates that she had seen him 2 times while she was working at the counter, and multiple times while she was not at the counter but through the security camera play-back. We wish to hear this portion read back. We also request to hear the portion of the cross-examination where she is asked and answers when she identified [a shooter shown in the surveillance video] as the defendant to the police” … . The court did not read the note aloud verbatim and the record does not reflect that the court showed the note to the parties. Rather, the record reflects that the court addressed the note before counsel and the jury by stating, “the readback that you have requested of [the restaurant worker’s] cross-examination where she is asked how many times she had seen the defendant at the restaurant will now be read back for you along with the second portion of that which reads, ‘We also request to hear that portion of the cross-examination where she is asked and answers when she identified [the shooter] as the defendant to the police.’ We’ll read both those portions.” The court failed to read the second and third sentences contained within the jury note. We conclude that by improperly paraphrasing the jury note, the court failed to give meaningful notice of the note … . People v Crawford, 2024 NY Slip Op 00528, Fourth Dept 2-2-24

Practice Point: Here the judge’s failure to read the note from the jury verbatim was deemed a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal of a murder conviction.

 

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