You are here: / Criminal Law

THE FEDERAL CRIME WHICH WAS USED TO ENHANCE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK; DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY ADJUDICATION VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s second felony offender adjudication, noted that federal conviction did not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing:

… [T]he defendant was improperly adjudicated as a second felony offender based on his federal conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, because that predicate crime does not require actual injury as one of its elements (see 18 USC § 1959[a][3]) and, thus, does not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing … . People v Odom, 2023 NY Slip Op 06756, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: If a federal crime does not meet the definition of a felony in New York it cannot be used to enhance defendant’s sentence. Here the federal crime did not include actual injury as one of its elements and therefore did not constitute a felony in New York. Defendant’s second felony offender adjudication was vacated.

 

,

IN THIS STREET STOP CASE, THE POLICE OFFICER’S CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN THE OUTLINE OF A GUN UNDER DEFENDANT’S SWEAT PANTS WAS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE PEOPLE THEREFORE DID NOT MEET THEIR “BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD” AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THE GUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession-of-a-weapon conviction, determined the People did not meet their burden of going forward at the suppression hearing because the police officer’s (Desposito’s) testimony was not credible. The court went on to say that, even if Desposito’s testimony were true, the evidence did not provide reasonable suspicion for the street stop. Defendant was walking on the sidewalk. Desposito was in a moving car. Desposito claimed he saw the outline of a gun under defendant’s sweat pants and told defendant to stop. Defendant ran, was captured, and a gun was found. Because Desposito was in a moving car and his view of defendant was obscured by parked cars and another pedestrian, the court found his testimony insufficient to meet the “going forward” burden of proof:

… [T]he People failed to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, as Desposito’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law and patently tailored to meet constitutional objections … . Desposito’s testimony that he was able to observe an “L-shaped object” beneath the defendant’s sweatpants as the police vehicle drove past the defendant strains credulity and defies common sense … . …

… [E]ven if Desposito’s testimony is credited as true, his observations did not constitute specific circumstances indicative of criminal activity so as to establish the reasonable suspicion necessary to lawfully pursue the defendant, even when coupled with the defendant’s flight … . People v Leon, 2023 NY Slip Op 06754, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: If a police officer’s suppression-hearing testimony attempting to demonstrate reasonable suspicion for a street stop is incredible as a matter of law, the People fail to meet their “burden of going forward” and the motion to suppress must be granted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION PAPERS AND EXHIBITS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF HE WERE AWARE HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter, determined the judge should not have denied defendant’s motion to vacate his plea without holding a hearing. Defendant alleged he would not have pled guilty if he had been informed of the deportation consequences:

According to the defendant’s motion and exhibits, he allegedly immigrated to the United States at approximately 17 years of age, resided here for approximately 26 years, was employed in the United States, and had two children here. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s allegations in his motion that he would not have pleaded guilty and would instead have gone to trial had the court warned him of the possibility of deportation, were sufficient to raise an issue of fact in that regard … . Therefore, the County Court erred in deciding the defendant’s motion to vacate his plea without a hearing. People v Hernandez, 2023 NY Slip Op 06752, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: If a defendant, in a motion to vacate his plea, raises a question of fact about whether he would have pled guilty if he had know he could be deported, the judge should not deny the motion without holding a hearing.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE HAD A COURT OFFICER COMMUNICATE WITH THE JURY ABOUT A SUBSTANTIVE MATTER OUTSIDE OF THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should not have communicated with the jury outside of the defendant’s presence and should not have delegated the court’s duty to a court officer. When the jury sent out the verdict sheet, the judge noticed a mistake. The jury had indicated “guilty on all counts,” including count 2, but the jury should have been instructed to skip count 2 if it found defendant guilty of count 1. The judge sent a court officer to the jury to explain the mistake. The jury came back with a verdict of guilty on count 2. Defense counsel did not object to the procedure:

“[A] defendant has the right to be present during all critical stages of a trial and . . . this includes the right to be present when the jury is given instructions or information by the court” … . “Equally true is that the court may not delegate to a nonjudicial staff member its authority to instruct the jury on matters affecting their deliberations” … . While “[a] Trial Judge may properly authorize a court officer to speak to a deliberating jury when the subject of the communication is administerial[,] . . . a Trial Judge who authorizes a court officer to communicate with a jury on matters which are not administerial not only errs, but commits an error so grave as to warrant reversal even though the defendant’s attorney might have consented to the occurrence of the error” … .

… Supreme Court improperly delegated a judicial duty to a nonjudicial staff member at a critical stage of the proceedings. … [T]he instruction was not a mere ministerial matter. Under the circumstances, where the jury was deliberating and had expressed confusion about the relationship between counts one and two, the court’s rejection of the verdict sheet and the instruction to correct it was an instruction regarding the jury’s deliberation … . Thus, the defendant was absent during a critical stage of the trial, and the court improperly delegated a judicial duty to a nonjudicial staff member … . People v Fulton, 2023 NY Slip Op 06750, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: It is reversible error for a judge to communicate with the jury outside the defendant’s presence.

Practice Point: It is reversible error for a judge to allow a court officer to communicate with the jury about a substantive matter.

 

,

A FACTUAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD CONVICTION AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS BASED ON THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the record was not sufficient to support summary judgment on the neglect allegations based upon respondent’s plea to endangering the welfare of a child:

… [A] criminal conviction may be given collateral estoppel effect in a Family Court proceeding where (1) the identical issue has been resolved, and (2) the defendant in the criminal action had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of his or her criminal conduct” … . “It is well settled that [t]he party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination” … . * * *

“[I]t is not enough to merely establish the existence of the criminal conviction; the petitioner must prove a factual nexus between the conviction and the allegations made in the neglect petition” … . Matter of Clarissa F. (Rex O.), 2023 NY Slip Op 06680, Fourth Dept 12-22-23

Practice Point: Here a factual nexus between the endangering the welfare of a child conviction and the allegations of neglect was not demonstrated. Summary judgment on the neglect allegations based solely on the criminal conviction should not have been granted.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS 19 WHEN ARRSTED FOR HAVING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON HIS PHONE, AND WHO HAD NEVER COMMITTED ANY OTHER OFFENSES, WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO SORA RISK-LEVEL ONE; COUNTY COURT APPLIED THE WRONG EVIDENTIARY STANDARD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined (1) County Court erred when it applied the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard, as opposed to the “preponderance of the evidence” standard to the SORA risk assessment proceeding, and (2) defendant in this child pornography case was entitled to a downward departure to level one. Defendant, who was 19, had child pornography on his phone but had never committed a sexual offense or any other crime. He was sentenced to probation. He was assessed 90 points (level two) by the People (including 30 points for three or more victims [risk factor 3] and 20 points because the victims were strangers [risk factor 7]).

As the Court of Appeals has stated, “in deciding a child pornography offender’s application for a downward departure, a SORA court should, in the exercise of its discretion, give particularly strong consideration to the possibility that adjudicating the offender in accordance with the guidelines point score and without departing downward might lead to an excessive level of registration” … . “The departure process is the best way to avoid potentially ‘anomalous results’ for some child pornography offenders that ‘the authors of the Guidelines may not have intended or foreseen’ ” … .

Here, defendant established by a preponderance of the evidence that there are mitigating factors “not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines” …  The mitigating factors include the fact that defendant was assessed points under risk factors 3 and 7, without which he would have scored as a level one risk. Further, weighing the mitigating factors against any aggravating factors, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances warrants a downward departure to risk level one to avoid an over-assessment of “defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . People v Stagles, 2023 NY Slip Op 06613, Fourth Dept 12-22-23

Practice Point: The correct evidentiary standard for a SORA risk-level assessment is “preponderance of the evidence.”

Practice Point: For offenders convicted of possession of child pornography, who are assessed SORA risk-level points for “three of more victims” and “strangers as victims” based solely on the images, may be entitled to a downward departure.

 

, ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, EVIDENCE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SEE THE CAR HE COLLIDED WITH AND FAILED TO TIMELY BRAKE IS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR A CRIMINALLLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION; THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS PRESERVED BY A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE AND RULED ON AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S CASE; THE “LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT” VERSUS “AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE” STANDARDS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s criminally negligent homicide conviction in this traffic accident case, determined the evidence was legally insufficient. The Third Department noted the issue was preserved by a written motion to dismiss submitted at the close of the People’s case and ruled upon after the close of defendant’s case. The Third Department also compared the criteria for a motion to dismiss for legal insufficiency and a determination a conviction is against the weight of the evidence. The trial evidence demonstrated only that defendant was inattentive when he rounded a turn and struck the back of the victim’s car as it was waiting to make a turn while travelling about 45 mph. That was not enough to demonstrate criminal negligence:

Defendant preserved the claim of legal insufficiency when County Court reserved upon a written motion to dismiss presented at the close of the People’s case and ultimately denied the motion at the close of defendant’s case … .

A review of legal sufficiency requires this Court to “view the facts in the light most favorable to the People and examine whether there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt” … . Whereas, a review of whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence requires the court to “view the evidence in a neutral light and determine first whether a different verdict would have been unreasonable and, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence” … . * * *

“The unexplained failure of a driver to see the vehicle with which he subsequently collided does not, without more, support a conviction for the felony of criminally negligent homicide” … . Here, the People argue that a failure to brake — for what is alleged to be a period of 10 to 18 seconds — constitutes criminal negligence. But even taking the facts in the light most favorable to the People, a failure to brake, without more, does not constitute criminal negligence … . People v Munise, 2023 NY Slip Op 06562, Third Dept 12-21-23

Practice Point: Here the victim died after a rear-end collision. Proof that defendant failed to see the victim’s car and failed to timely brake does not support a criminally negligence homicide conviction.

Practice Point: Making a motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case which is ruled on after the defendant’s case preserves the legal insufficiency argument for appeal.

Practice Point: The decision includes a comparison of the “legal insufficiency” and “against the weight of the evidence” analytical criteria.

 

A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH A CLASS A FELONY CANNOT WAIVE INDICTMENT AND PLEAD TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION PURSUANT TO CPL 195.10 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and dismissing the superior court information, determined defendant was not eligible to waive the indictment and plead to a superior court information because the controlling statute does not apply to A felonies. Defendant was charged with an A-II felony:

Defendant’s primary contention is that the waiver of indictment and SCI were jurisdictionally defective … . CPL 195.10 provides, in relevant part, that “[a] defendant may waive indictment and consent to be prosecuted by [SCI] when . . . the defendant is not charged with a class A felony punishable by death or life imprisonment” (CPL 195.10 [1] [b]). To this end, the Court of Appeals has held that “when an accused is held for [g]rand [j]ury action upon a felony complaint that charges a class A felony, . . . a waiver of indictment with respect to that felony complaint is unauthorized” … . Here, defendant was held for grand jury action upon a felony complaint charging him with predatory sexual assault against a child, a class A-II felony that is punishable by an indeterminate sentence with a mandatory maximum term of life imprisonment … . Defendant’s waiver of indictment encompassed this charge and, thus, was expressly prohibited under CPL 195.10 and is invalid, “render[ing] the resulting procedure employed to procure defendant’s guilty plea unauthorized” … . People v Smith, 2023 NY Slip Op 06563, Third Dept 12-21-23

Practice Point: Defendants charged with a class A felony are not eligible, pursuant to CPL 195.10, to waive indictment and plead to a superior court information.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WAS ENTITLED TO A REDUCED SENTENCE UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA); TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS NOT UNDULY HARSH (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant was entitled to resentencing in this manslaughter case under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). The dissenters agreed that defendant met the DVSJA criteria for a reduced sentence, but argued the sentence that was imposed was not unduly harsh:

… [W]e disagree with County Court’s determination that defendant’s abuse was anything less than “substantial,” as defendant’s own account of the specific acts of violence, which is largely corroborated by various witnesses in the record, and the injuries suffered as well as the psychological abuse that came alongside such violence was sufficient to fall under the ambit of the DVSJA. Although the court accurately concluded that the relationship between defendant and the victim was mutually abusive, that does not foreclose a determination that defendant was a victim of abuse … . Moreover, such conduct is readily explained in Lesswing’s [the forensic psychologist’s] report as typical of those persons suffering from battered person syndrome, particularly in the case of defendant who had a lengthy history of exposure to domestic violence over the course of her life … . People v Brenda WW., 2023 NY Slip Op 06564, Third Dept 12-21-23

Practice Point: Here in this manslaughter case  the defendant met the criteria for a reduced sentence under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). Two dissenters agreed that defendant met the criteria but argued the imposed sentence was not unduly harsh.

 

, , ,

A CANINE SNIFF FOR DRUGS IS A SEARCH; ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD ALSO RULED THE CANINE SNIFF WAS A SEARCH, THE APPELLATE DIVISION WENT ON TO APPLY THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD AND FOUND THAT STANDARD HAD BEEN MET BY THE FACTS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RULE ADVERSELY TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE STANDARD BECAUSE COUNTY COURT HAD NOT RULED ON THAT ISSUE (COUNTY COURT HELD THE SNIFF WAS NOT A SEARCH); THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO COUNTY COURT FOR RULINGS ON THE STANDARD FOR A SNIFF SEARCH (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined that a canine sniff of a person to detect drugs is a search. The Fourth Department had reversed County Court and held that the canine sniff constituted a search. But the Fourth Department went on to apply the “reasonable suspicion” standard to whether the search was justified and found that standard had been met by the facts. Because County Count had not ruled on the correct standard for a sniff-search (County Court held the sniff was not a search), the Fourth Department did not have the authority rule against the defendant on that issue. The matter was sent back to County Court for rulings on what the correct standard is and whether that standard was met by the events preceding the sniff-search in this case:

… [W]e conclude that the canine sniff of defendant’s person qualified as a search under the Fourth Amendment. * * *

The second question presented by this appeal is whether the Appellate Division could decide that a canine sniff search of a person requires reasonable suspicion and was justified in this case. We conclude that the Appellate Division lacked jurisdiction to resolve those issues because County Court did not decide them adversely to defendant (see LaFontaine, 92 NY2d at 473-474). * * *

County Court held that the canine sniff of defendant’s person did not qualify as a search. The court did not decide the standard that would govern if the canine sniff did so qualify, much less whether that standard was met. Those questions present “separate” and “analytically distinct” issues from the threshold question of whether the sniff implicated constitutional protections or prohibitions … . The Appellate Division therefore erred in deciding those questions adversely to defendant…. . People v Butler, 2023 NY Slip Op 06468, CtApp 12-19-23

Practice Point: A canine sniff for drugs on a person is a search. The correct standard justifying such a search has not been determined.

Practice Point: If an issue has not been addressed by the lower court, the appellate court is powerless to rule adversely to the defendant on that issue. Here County Court had held that a canine sniff is not a search and therefore never ruled on the correct standard for such a search. The Appellate Division (which reversed County Court on whether the sniff is a search) could not decide what the correct standard for the search was and then rule that the standard had been met, because that ruling was adverse to the defendant. The matter was sent back to the County Court for a ruling.

 

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