You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THE EVIDENCE OF “SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (NO TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION?) BUT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reducing defendant’s assault first conviction to assault second, determined the evidence of serious disfigurement was legally insufficient. The issue was not preserved (no motion for a trial order of dismissal on the issue?) but was considered on appeal in the interest of justice:

The People failed to demonstrate that the victim, who sustained a two-to-three-centimeter laceration on her forehead, which required three stitches and resulted in a small scar, suffered a serious disfigurement … . Accordingly, the convictions on those counts must be vacated. However, because the evidence sufficed to prove that the victim suffered a physical injury (Penal Law § 10.00[9]), we reduce the second-degree assault conviction to third-degree assault (Penal Law § 120.00[1]). People v Murray, 2023 NY Slip Op 06454, First Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: If there is a “legally insufficient evidence” issue, raise it on appeal even if the issue was not preserved by a motion for a trial order of dismissal. The issue may be addressed in the interest of justice.

 

, , , ,

THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEAS, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE THE GUILTY PLEAS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter, determined defendant was not warned about the possibility of deportation based upon his guilty pleas. The matter was sent back to allow defendant to move to vacate the pleas:

The defendant’s contention that his due process rights were violated due to the Supreme Court’s failure to warn him that his pleas could subject him to deportation is excepted from the requirement of preservation because the record does not demonstrate that the defendant was aware that he could be deported as a consequence of his pleas of guilty … . Indeed, here, the record shows that the court failed to address the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the defendant’s pleas of guilty … .

… [W]e remit the matters to the Supreme Court … to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his pleas of guilty and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter … . Upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court warned him of the possibility of deportation … . In its report to this Court, the Supreme Court shall set forth whether the defendant moved to vacate his pleas of guilty and, if so, its determination as to whether the defendant made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing … . People v Jean, 2023 NY Slip Op 06380, Second Dept 12-13-23

Practice Point: If the record does not demonstrate a defendant was aware of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea, the matter will be remitted to give the defendant the opportunity to move to vacate the plea. The issue need not be preserved for appeal.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS MURDER CASE MADE SERIOUS REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WHICH WERE SUMMARILY DENIED WITHOUT AN INQUIRY; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS VIOLATED; NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have summarily dismissed defendant’s serious request for new counsel without making an inquiry and factual findings. Defendant’s right to counsel was violated:

In 2017, the defendant was charged by indictment with murder in the second degree, among other crimes. While the matter was pending, the defendant submitted to the Supreme Court a writing, dated December 24, 2018, in which he claimed that he had had no conferences or meetings with his assigned counsel, that counsel had failed to appear in court on several control dates, that there had been a complete breakdown in communication between the defendant and counsel, and that counsel’s omnibus motion contained numerous factual inaccuracies. The defendant also requested a six-week adjournment to attempt to secure representation from a particular attorney who purportedly had agreed to represent the defendant.

At a pretrial proceeding on January 4, 2019, the Supreme Court summarily denied the defendant’s application without making any inquiry. During a subsequent appearance, in June 2019, the defendant read a lengthy statement in which he recounted that his prior application was denied and listed his reasons for not wanting to be represented by his assigned counsel. * * *

… Supreme Court’s conduct in summarily denying the defendant’s application for an adjournment, without conducting any inquiry, and telling him that the court would not relieve assigned counsel and that his alternative was to represent himself pro se, violated the defendant’s right to counsel …. People v Scott, 2023 NY Slip Op 06261, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: A serious request for new counsel should not be summarily denied without an inquiry. Here defendant was denied his right to counsel by the judge’s failure to address his request. A new trial before a different judge was ordered.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING DID NOT MAKE DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT, REQUIRING REMITTAL; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IN PART BECAUSE COUNSEL DID NOT ARGUE FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s level-three SORA risk-assessment, noted that the judge failed to set forth all of the relevant findings of fact and determined defense counsel was ineffective. Defense counsel was not aware that youthful offender adjudications can be considered by the SORA court and defense counsel failed to argue for a downward departure. The departure would have been warranted because defendant, who was 17 at the time, had been charged with a misdemeanor based on having sex with his girlfriend:

Failure to comply with the statutory mandate to make detailed findings on the record would alone require that the matter be remitted to County Court … . * * *

The only argument advanced by defendant’s counsel at the SORA hearing was a challenge to the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 9, on the basis that a youthful offender adjudication should be precluded in assessing defendant’s sex offender classification. That argument, however, was devoid of merit … , and demonstrated counsel’s unfamiliarity with existing and applicable case law … . * * *

… [Counsel] did not request a downward departure from the presumptive risk level three classification. The crime underlying the youthful offender adjudication was the class A misdemeanor of sexual misconduct … , stemming from defendant, who had just turned 17, having sexual intercourse with his girlfriend, who was about two months younger. Downward departure has been found appropriate where there is a “relatively slight age difference between [the] defendant and the victim [and] undisputed evidence that the victim’s lack of consent was premised only on her inability to consent by virtue of her age” … . Notwithstanding facts and case law that could support a reasonable argument for a downward departure here, counsel failed to make such a request. In our view, the foregoing establishes that defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel … . People v Wilcox, 2023 NY Slip Op 06175, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: The judge in a SORA risk-level proceeding is required to make detailed findings of fact.

Practice Point: Defense counsel in a SORA risk-level proceeding is ineffective if counsel is not aware youthful offender adjudications can be considered by the SORA court.

 

, ,

THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MURDER TRIAL ARGUING THAT THE JUDGE’S PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE MADE THE PROSECUTION IMPOSSIBLE; IN THE PROSECUTOR’S ABSENCE AT TRIAL, THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO CPL 290.10; THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, issued a writ of prohibition against the respondent County Judge nullifying the order dismissing the murder indictment against defendant. The petitioner was the district attorney (DA) who was prosecuting defendant. The DA disagreed with certain preclusion orders issued by the Judge and argued the prosecution of the defendant was rendered impossible by the preclusion of evidence. The DA refused to participate in the trial. At trial, in the DA’s absence, the Judge dismissed the indictment pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 290.10. Because such a dismissal requires a trial as a prerequisite, and because there was no trial, the Third Department held the Judge did not have the authority to dismiss the indictment:

Upon a criminal defendant’s motion, a court may dismiss any count of an indictment on the basis that the trial evidence was not legally sufficient to establish the charged crime (see CPL 290.10 [1] [a]). Critically, a court is empowered to do so “[a]t the conclusion of the [P]eople’s case or at the conclusion of all the evidence” (CPL 290.10 [1]). Based on this language, a dismissal under CPL 290.10 contemplates, at the very least, that a prosecutor actually present a case. This did not occur in the underlying criminal proceeding. Petitioner did not deliver an opening statement, did not call witnesses and did not tender documentary evidence to be received by respondent. Without a case by petitioner, respondent could not dismiss the indictment under CPL 290.10 … . In essence, the dismissal of the indictment was due to the default of petitioner, which respondent lacked authority to do … . Matter of Clegg v Rounds, 2023 NY Slip Op 06181, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: If the prosecutor refuses to participate in the trial, the judge cannot dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 290.10. The statute requires a trial as a prerequisite. Here there was no trial. The prosecutor’s petition for a writ of prohibition against the judge was granted. The “trial” was nullified.

 

, , , ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT INCLUDE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT ORDER; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS; ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court’s order failed to included the required findings of fact. In addition, the Attorney General should have been notified of defendant’s constitutional arguments:

County Court’s order failed to set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Correction Law § 168-n (3). The March 2022 order states that at a hearing held on an unspecified date, the court “set out its findings of fact . . . which support the assignment of points for each risk factor.” No such findings are set forth in the order and, if placed on the record at the hearing, no hearing transcript is contained in the record. Absent any record findings of fact and conclusions of law by the court, this Court is precluded from conducting a meaningful appellate review of the assessment of points and defendant’s risk level classification. As such, the matter must be remitted … . Further, to the extent that defendant raises direct constitutional challenges to certain portions of Correction Law § 168, as set forth in his memorandum submitted to County Court, the record is devoid of any indication that the Attorney General was timely notified of such challenges or whether the court ruled on any of the issues raised. In view of the foregoing, County Court’s March 30, 2022 order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings. People v Kelsey, 2023 NY Slip Op 06186, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: The Correction Law requires that an order in a SORA risk-level proceeding include findings of fact.

Practice Point: Where a defendant raises constitutional arguments in a SORA risk-level proceeding, the Attorney General must be notified.

 

,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS FOR TWO SEPARATE MURDERS WHICH WERE TRIED TOGETHER; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE TWO PROSECUTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE PROBABILITY THE JURY WOULD NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE OF EACH MURDER SEPARATELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department affirmed defendant’s convictions over a two-justice dissent arguing that the two charged murders should have been tried separately:

Defendant argued that the People had joined “two underwhelming cases” in hopes that the jury would be more likely to convict a “common suspect.” In opposing the motion, the People argued that the counts in the indictment were properly joinable pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (c) and, among other things, the People planned to call two incarcerated individuals who were housed with defendant and to whom defendant made certain admissions. At trial, both of the incarcerated individuals and the medical examiner, among others, provided testimony relevant to each of the two victims. Defendant’s motion was facially devoid of any good cause showing. * * *

From the dissent:

… [T]he People chiefly relied on circumstantial evidence, the proof linking defendant to either murder is not overwhelming, the two incidents that form the basis of these charges took place 2½ years apart and there was no unique modus operandi to link the commission of the crimes to defendant … . Further, a review of the record demonstrates that the quantum of evidence relating to each incident was not substantially similar but, rather, proof relating to the second murder is significantly more abundant in quantity and significant in scope. Despite County Court’s instruction to the jury to consider the evidence separately, there was a substantial likelihood that the jury “aggregate[d] the evidence relating to each incident” … , as it is much more likely that the jury would focus on the abhorrent common nature of the crimes than to focus on the fundamental differences of proof … . People v Mero, 2023 NY Slip Op 06000, Third Dept 11-22-23

 

IF THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF DEFENDANT’S LOCATION OUT-OF-STATE AND DID NOT EXERCISE “DUE DILIGENCE” IN SECURING HER RETURN TO NEW YORK THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK WOULD NOT STOP RUNNING BASED SOLELY ON HER ABSENCE; HEARING REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant had raised questions of fact whether the People were aware of her location in Virginia between her indictment in 2013 and her return to New York in 2018. County Court, therefore, should have held a hearing on her “speedy trial” motion to dismiss. If the People were aware of her location, and did not exercise “due diligence” to secure her presence in New York, the speedy trial clock would not have been stopped based solely on defendant’s absence from the state:

“Having charged defendant with a felony, the People were required to be ready for trial within six months of the filing of the first accusatory instrument, here the felony complaint[s]” issued on September 3, 2013 … . As defendant consistently asserted her speedy trial rights, and the People did not announce readiness for trial until October 3, 2018, it was incumbent upon the People “to show that any delay beyond the statutory maximum should be excluded” … . The People primarily attempted to do so by relying upon CPL 30.30 (4) (c) (i), which renders “the period of delay resulting from [defendant’s] absence or unavailability” excludable, arguing that defendant had absconded after the shooting and remained unavailable until her arrest on August 30, 2018. Absence in that context means that the defendant’s “location is unknown and he [or she] is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution, or his [or her] location cannot be determined by due diligence,” while unavailability occurs “whenever [the defendant’s] location is known but his [or her] presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence” … . Notably, “[a]bsent a demonstration of ‘prosecutorial diligence in locating the defendant and/or securing his [or her] presence,’ the mere fact that the defendant was in another jurisdiction when the action was commenced does not entitle the People to exclude the time” … . People v Pittman, 2023 NY Slip Op 06001, Third Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: The defendant presented documentary evidence demonstrating the People were aware of her location out-of-state and did not exercise “due diligence” in securing her return to the state for five years. She was entitled to a hearing on her “speedy trial” motion to dismiss.

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS IN A PRISON AS A VISITOR WHEN THERE WAS A CANINE ALERT TO DRUGS ON HER PERSON, THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUCH THAT ANY QUESTIONING SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECEDED BY THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE FELT FREE TO LEAVE; BECAUSE THEY WERE CLOSE IN TIME, BOTH HER ORAL STATEMENT AND HER POST-MIRANDA WRITTEN STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the defendant, who, as a visitor in a prison, was taken aside by an investigator after a canine alert to the presence of drugs on her person, was subjected to “custodial interrogation” requiring suppression of her admission to having drugs and her subsequent written statement:

… [W]hen the canine alerted, the metal door that defendant had just passed through was closed and could only be opened by a security officer. In view of this particular setting, a reasonable person innocent of wrongdoing would not have felt that he or she was free to leave.

… [T]aking into account that the investigator took defendant aside because a canine had just alerted, as well as the purpose of having a canine at a security checkpoint, the investigator’s inquiry of defendant as to why she thought the canine alerted was not merely investigatory or a request for pedigree information. Rather, it was accusatory and designed to elicit an incriminating response. Under these particular circumstances, defendant made the initial oral statements in a custodial setting, thereby requiring Miranda warnings. In the absence of such warnings, the initial oral statements should have been suppressed … .

As to the written statement, it was given after Miranda warnings were issued. To that end, “where an improper, unwarned statement gives rise to a subsequent Mirandized statement as part of a ‘single continuous chain of events,’ there is inadequate assurance that the Miranda warnings were effective in protecting a defendant’s rights, and the warned statement must also be suppressed” … . The record reveals that defendant was interviewed by the same person and in the same room, that she gave her written statement almost immediately after the investigator’s initial inquiry as to why she thought the canine alerted and that the whole process took less than 30 minutes without any breaks. Accordingly, the written statement should have been suppressed as being tainted by the improper questioning by the investigator … . People v Kelly, 2023 NY Slip Op 06003, Third Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: Although not always the case re: a visitor in a prison, here the circumstances warranted finding that defendant was “in custody” when she was asked a question by a prison investigator after a canine alert to drugs on her person. Because the question preceded the Miranda warnings, her statement should have been suppressed.

Practice Point: Here defendant’s post-Miranda written statement, made 30 minutes after her unwarned oral statement, should have been suppressed.

 

, ,

THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE PEOPLE’S ACCIDENT-RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT (WHO WAS NOT CALLED TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL) WOULD HAVE HAD AN IMPACT ON THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE DEFENSE ACCIDENT-RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT; WITHHOLDING THE EVIDENCE FROM THE DEFENSE WAS A BRADY VIOLATION REQUIRING REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s vehicular homicide and manslaughter convictions and ordering a new trial, determined expert opinion evidence constituted Brady material which was wrongfully withheld from the defense. The People’s accident-reconstruction expert in question, who did not testify at the trial, was named Pinzer. The defense accident-reconstruction expert, named Silver, testified in the CPL 440 hearing that his opinion would have been influenced by Pinzer’s findings. The driver lost control of the car which flipped several times. The defendant survived and the other occupant was ejected from the car and died. The withheld expert evidence called into question various aspects of law enforcement’s investigation of the accident, the speed of the car at the time of the accident, for example:

Silver … testif[ied] at the hearing that, although knowledge of [Pinzer’s conclusions] would not have changed his ultimate conclusion as to who was operating the vehicle, it did have a direct and significant impact on his methodology and findings. For example, had he known that the data was corrupted, he would have performed his analysis differently and explained to the jury why law enforcement’s data was unreliable; he would have also been able to rebut any challenge to his credibility for the use of multiple formulas and his own data. He also averred that, in light of the new information regarding the data, his trial testimony as to the vehicle’s speed prior to the accident — 55 to 65 miles per hour — was overstated. * * *

… [I]n view of the character of the withheld information here, the misleading disclosure that was made, the manner in which the prosecutor elected to act on Silver’s testimony of defendant’s innocence and the circumstantial nature of this case, we agree with defendant that Pinzer’s opinion … must be considered favorable to the defense. * * *

… Pinzer was an arm of the prosecution, acting on the government’s behalf, and the People had a duty to learn of his opinion, which “directly relates to the prosecution or investigation of . . . defendant’s case” … . * * *

… [T]here was no reasonable possibility that the People’s failure to disclose Pinzer’s opinion did not impact the verdict … . The prosecutor’s cross-examination of Silver and his statements in summation — which sought to both bolster the legitimacy of police work that he should have known was faulty and impugn the credibility of Silver for not exclusively relying upon same — “compounded the prejudice” to defendant … . People v Hoffman, 2023 NY Slip Op 06004, Third Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: Here, in this vehicular homicide case, the People did not disclose the conclusions reached by their accident-reconstruction expert, who was not called to testify at trial. The defense accident-reconstruction expert would have changed some of his conclusions had he been aware of the People’s expert’s analyses. Withholding the People’s expert’s findings from the defense was a Brady violation requiring reversal and a new trial.

 

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