You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

THE REGULATIONS ALLOWING FAMILIAL DNA SEARCHES WERE VALIDLY PROMULGATED; THE REGULATIONS ALLOW DNA SEARCHES WHICH REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF PERSONS IN THE CRIMINAL DNA DATABASE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over an extensive three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the Commission on Forensic Sciences properly promulgated the Familial DNA Search (FDS) Regulations. The regulations allow DNA searches which may reveal the identity of relatives of a persons whose DNA is in the database. The underlying Article 78 petition was brought by two men, never convicted of a crime, whose brothers were in the DNA database as a result of a felony conviction:

There is no provision in the FDS for an identified relative to be notified and/or challenge the search before law enforcement officials may proceed with an investigation based on a familial match from the Databank. Petitioners Terrence Stevens and Benjamin Joseph are two Black men living New York who have never been convicted of a crime. Each has a brother whose genetic information has been collected and stored in the DNA Databank as the result of a felony conviction, in accordance with Databank Act requirements. Mr. Stephens and Mr. Joseph brought this CLPR article 78 proceeding against respondents … alleging … that respondents lacked statutory authority to promulgate the FDS Regulations and therefore violated the separation of powers doctrine under the New York Constitution. Respondents denied petitioners’ allegations and asserted that petitioners lacked standing to challenge the FDS Regulations. * * *

Given the clarity and specificity of the guidelines provided in the Databank Act, respondents acted within their delegated authority. The FDS Regulations are a result of “administrative rule-making,” not “legislative policy-making” … . Here, the legislature made the policy determination that New York State should have well-developed DNA testing programs to assist law enforcement, that the use of the information should be limited, and the data and results secure. Matter of Stevens v New York State Div. of Criminal Justice Servs., 2023 NY Slip Op 05351, CtApp 10-24-23

Practice Point: The regulations allowing familial DNA searches which reveal the identity of relatives of persons in the criminal DNA database are constitutional. There was an extensive three-judge dissent.

 

, ,

NYPD’S WRITTEN INVENTORY SEARCH PROTOCOL IS CONSTITUTIONAL; HERE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF THE TRUNK OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE TURNED UP A FIREARM (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over an extensive dissent, determined the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD’s) written inventory search protocol was constitutional. Defendant was arrested after a traffic stop for possession of a gravity knife. A subsequent inventory search of defendant’s vehicle turned up a firearm from the trunk:

Defendant moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the NYPD’s inventory search protocol was unconstitutional because it gives officers too much discretion in conducting inventory searches and that the searching officers failed to create a meaningful inventory of defendant’s items. At the suppression hearing, the People introduced the NYPD’s written inventory search protocol as set forth in section 218-13 of the NYPD Patrol Guide. The protocol instructs officers to first “[s]earch the interior of the vehicle thoroughly,” “includ[ing] any area that may contain valuables.” The protocol lists 10 areas within the car that must be searched, such as the glove compartment and trunk, but does not limit the searching officers to those spaces. Second, section 218-13 directs officers to force open the “trunk, glove compartment, etc. only if it can be done with minimal damage” except in particular situations including where officers “[r]easonably suspect that the item contains weapons, explosives, hazardous materials or contraband.” Lastly, the protocol requires officers to remove the valuables from the vehicle and invoice, or “voucher,” the property on a specifically referenced invoice form. Section 218-13 instructs officers to list property of little value inside the vehicle, “within reason,” in their activity log and cross reference the property “to the invoice number covering any valuables removed.” Both officers testified that the purpose of an inventory search is, in part, to secure a defendant’s items. The arresting officer further testified that it is an officer’s duty to safeguard a defendant’s recovered items prior to vouchering the items. People v Douglas, 2023 NY Slip Op 05350, CtApp 10-24-23

Practice Point: Here the NYPD’s written inventory search protocol for vehicles was found constitutional. Defendant was arrested after a traffic stop for possession of a gravity knife. A subsequent inventory search of defendant’s vehicle turned up a firearm. There was an extensive dissenting opinion.

 

, ,

​ ALTHOUGH THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL RULES DO NOT APPLY TO STAND-ALONE TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS, THE PEOPLE AGREED TO DISMISS THE TRAFFIC INFRACTION ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; THE PEOPLE THEN APPEALED; THE COURT OF APPEALS, OVER A DISSENT, HELD THE MATTER WAS NOT REVIEWABLE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, over a dissenting opinion, determined that the error was not reviewable because the People consented to it. In 2022 the Court of Appeals held that the statutory speedy trial rules do not apply to traffic infractions which stand alone, i.e., the traffic infraction is not charged along with a felony, misdemeanor or violation. The defendant’s traffic infraction had been dismissed on speedy-trial grounds with the People’s consent. The People then appealed the dismissal:

On appeal, the People contend that CPL 30.30 (1) (e)—which took effect more than a year before defendant was even charged—was enacted to clarify that CPL 30.30 (1) applies ” ‘to accusatory instruments charging traffic infractions jointly with a felony, misdemeanor, or violation,’ ” but that, as we stated in People v Galindo, ” ‘actions involving only traffic infractions would still not be covered by the speedy trial statute’ ” (quoting 38 NY3d 199, 201, 206 [2022] [emphasis added]). Thus, the instant appeal involves no intervening newly declared principle of law.

Because the People agreed in Town Court that CPL 30.30 applied to the simplified traffic information, the issue is unreviewable (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, we engender no unjust result by applying our well-settled principles governing reviewability to reject the People’s attempt to reinstate the accusatory instrument against this pro se defendant, now almost two years after dismissal, by renouncing their express concession that CPL 30.30 applied. People v Lovett, 2023 NY Slip Op 05348, CtApp 10-24-23

Practice Point: If the People agree to an erroneous ruling and then appeal that ruling, the matter may not be reviewable by an appellate court.

 

,

DEFENDANT APPEARED IN COURT WITH A SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO INFORMED THE COURT ANOTHER LEGAL AID LAWYER WAS BEING ASSIGNED TO DEFENDANT’S CASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT “WITHOUT COUNSEL” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPL 30.30; THE ASSOCIATED SPEEDY-TRIAL TIME-PERIOD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE, NOT THE DEFENDANT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term. determined the defendant was not “without counsel” during an eight-day period. Therefore that eight-day period must be charged to the People and the People were not ready for the trial within the statutory 90 days:

Under CPL 30.30 (4) (f), a “period during which the defendant is without counsel through no fault of the court” must be excluded when calculating the time within which the People must be ready for trial. However, a defendant is not “without counsel” within the meaning of the statute when appearing with substitute counsel … .

Here, defendant was assigned an attorney from The Legal Aid Society during his arraignment. On November 5, 2018, the date that defendant’s case was calendared for trial, defendant appeared in court with a different attorney from that office, who informed the court that defendant’s original attorney was leaving the office and the case was being reassigned to another attorney from Legal Aid. Defendant plainly was represented at that appearance and was therefore not “without counsel” … . People v Justice A., 2023 NY Slip Op 05306, CtApp 10-19-23

Practice Point: Appearing with substitute counsel is not appearing “without counsel” within the meaning of CPL 30.30 (4)(f). The associated time should not have been charged to the defendant. The People therefore were not ready for trial within the statutory 90-day period.

 

, ,

FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT’S SEXUAL ACTIVITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED UNDER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE WAS VIOLATED; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lynch, reversing the Appellate Division, determined forensic evidence of the complainant’s sexual activity should not have been excluded pursuant to the Rape Shield Law. Under the circumstances, by excluding forensic evidence of sexual activity which did not implicate the defendant deprived defendant of the right to present a defense. The complainant alleged defendant inserted his finger in her vagina and fondled her breasts. A forensic analysis of a vaginal swab and complainant’s underwear revealed the presence of complainant’s saliva and fluids from two unidentified males:

… [T]he legislature enumerated five exceptions to CPL 60.42’s [the Rape Shield Law’s] evidentiary proscriptions. The first four exceptions “allow evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual conduct in narrowly defined factual circumstances,” whereas the fifth “is a broader ‘interest of justice’ provision vesting discretion in the trial court” (Williams, 81 NY2d at 311). “The exceptions . . . recognize that any law circumscribing the ability of the accused to defend against criminal charges remains subject to limitation by constitutional guarantees of due process and the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses” … .

Defendant argues that the forensic evidence was admissible under several of the exceptions set forth in CPL 60.42. We need not address every basis raised because we conclude that the trial court erred in denying admission of the evidence under CPL 60.42 (5). Under this subdivision, evidence of a victim’s sexual conduct may be admitted in evidence during a sex crime prosecution when it “is determined by the [trial] court after an offer of proof by the accused . . . to be relevant and admissible in the interests of justice” (CPL 60.42 [5]). “Offer of proof is not a term of art but its generally accepted meaning . . . is to summarize the substance or content of the evidence” … . In his motion in limine, defense counsel delineated the findings contained in the forensic reports and explained how they constituted “evidence of something other than . . . defendant having engaged in inappropriate and unlawful sexual activity with [the complainant].” This was a sufficient offer of proof under Williams (81 NY2d at 314). People v Cerda, 2023 NY Slip Op 05305, CtApp 10-19-23

Practice Point: Here the interest-of-justice exception to the Rape Shield Law applied. The majority found that the exclusion of forensic evidence of complainant’s sexual activity (which did not implicate the defendant) violated defendant’s right to put on a defense.

 

,

EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE EFFECT OF A DRUG MIXED WITH ALCOHOL ON DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO FORM THE INTENT TO COMMIT MURDER AND ASSAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO LAY A FOUNDATION TO QUALIFY AN EMAIL WHICH INCLUDED HEARSAY AS A BUSINESS RECORD; NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s attempted murder and assault convictions, determined expert testimony explaining the effects of a drug taken by the defendant along with alcohol should have been admitted. In addition, an email in which a police officer, who was not at the scene, referred to the defendant’s condition as “highly intoxicated” should not have been excluded as hearsay. If the document had been qualified as a business record, it would have been admissible. The defendant should have been given an opportunity to establish a foundation for the admissibility of the email:

As a general rule, the admissibility and limits of expert testimony lie primarily in the sound discretion of the trial court” … . The criteria to be used is “whether the proffered expert testimony ‘would aid a lay jury in reaching a verdict’ ” … , however, and the testimony proffered here regarding the effect of combined clonazepam and alcohol use would undoubtedly be useful to a lay jury in assessing “the ability of a defendant to form the intent to commit a crime following drug and alcohol consumption” … . As the Court of Appeals explained when presented with a comparable situation, while “jurors might be familiar with the effects of alcohol on one’s mental state, the combined impact of” alcohol and other drugs “on a person’s ability to act purposefully cannot be said as a matter of law to be within the ken of the typical juror” … . * * *

County Court erred in refusing to allow defendant to question the author of the preliminary investigation report describing defendant as “highly intoxicated” and then declining to admit the document into evidence on hearsay grounds because its author was not present on the night of the incident. Defendant must be afforded an opportunity to establish the proper foundation to qualify the email as a business record within the meaning of CPLR 4518 and, if defendant is successful in that effort, the fact that its author lacked personal knowledge of defendant’s intoxication goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the statements therein … . People v Mawhiney, 2023 NY Slip Op 05289, Third Dept 10-19-23

Practice Point: Where an issue is beyond the ken of an average juror, here the effect of a drug and alcohol combination on the defendant’s ability to form intent, expert testimony should be admitted.

Practice Point: Here an email by a police officer who was not at the scene of the shooting referred to the defendant as “highly intoxicated.” Although the statement is hearsay, the email may be admissible if it is demonstrated to be a business record.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY COUNTY COURT FOR THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; THE MATTER WAS REMANDED FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined defendant was not given notice of some of the grounds County Court relied upon for an upward departure re: defendant’s SORA risk-level assessment. That constituted a violation of defendant’s right to due process:

While … defendant [was] on notice that his persistent sexually-motivated criminal conduct would be relied upon by the People as a factor for upward departure, there is no similar indication that his concurrent conviction for failure to register along with the facts underlying his juvenile delinquency adjudication would be considered … . … “[D]efendant was entitled to a sufficient opportunity to consider and muster evidence in opposition to the request for an upward departure” on the specific bases upon which the People, and consequently County Court, would rely in considering that relief … . … [T]the matter must be remanded for a new hearing, upon proper notice to defendant of the justifications relied upon by the People specific to their request for such relief. People v Maurer, 2023 NY Slip Op 05290, Third Dept 10-19-23

Practice Point: Due process requires that a defendant be notified of all of the evidence which will be relied upon by the People and the court for a SORA risk assessment.

 

PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDERS RESPONDING TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE TIME BETWEEN THE FILING OF A FELONY COMPLAINT AND ARRAIGNMENT ON AN INDICTMENT WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMSISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the COVID-19 toll specific to CPL 30.30 and 190.80 applied and the People, therefore, did not violate the speedy trial statute:

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on December 30, 2020, former Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 202.87, which provided that “[s]ection 30.30 and [s]ection 190.80 of the criminal procedure law are suspended to the extent necessary to toll any time periods contained therein for the period during which the criminal action is proceeding on the basis of a felony complaint through arraignment on the indictment or on a superior court information and thereafter shall not be tolled” (9 NYCRR 8.202.87). Successive executive orders extended Executive Order No. 202.87 through May 23, 2021 (see 9 NYCRR 8.202.87-8.202.106).

Upon renewal, the County Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial. Contrary to the determination of the court, Executive Order No. 202.87, while in effect, constituted a toll of the time within which the People must be ready for trial for the period from the date a felony complaint was filed through the date of a defendant’s arraignment on the indictment, with no requirement that the People establish necessity for a toll in each particular case … . People v Marino, 2023 NY Slip Op 05273, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here the time between the filing of the felony complaint and arraignment on the indictment was excluded from the speedy trial clock pursuant to COVID-19 pandemic Executive Orders.

 

,

DEFENDANT, IN THE PLEA COLLOQUY, SAID SHE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE; AT THAT POINT THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE SURE SHE WAS AWARE SHE WAS WAIVING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the judge, based on the plea colloquy, should have questioned the defendant about her waiver of her right to present a justification defense:

The trial court failed to determine defendant’s understanding and waiver of her right to present a defense of justification after defendant stated, during the plea colloquy, “I had to defend myself” and “I wasn’t just the aggressor in the situation” (see People v Muniz-Cayetano, 186 AD3d 1169, 1171-1172 [1st Dept 2020] …). The People concede that the particulars of this case are indistinguishable from those of Muniz-Cayetano and that defendant’s guilty plea should be vacated. People v Williams, 2023 NY Slip Op 05195, First Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant said she acted in self defense during the plea colloquy. At that point the judge should have made sure she knew about and was waiving the justification defense.

 

,

THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT MADE AN INFORMED DECISION TO WAIVE A VIABLE INSANITY DEFENSE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT VACATED THE PLEA AND DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT; DEFENDANT WAS RETURNED TO AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY UNDER A CIVIL GUARDIANSHIP ORDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s plea and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s plea was invalid because it was not clear he made an informed decision to waive a viable insanity defense:

As the People concede, the circumstances of this unique case warrant vacating the plea and dismissing the indictment. The plea allocution did not address whether defendant was making an informed decision to waive a potentially viable insanity defense … , and the record as a whole casts significant doubt on defendant’s mental competence and ability to understand the proceedings or the terms of his plea … .

Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is dismissal rather than a remand for further proceedings. Among other things, this 68-year-old, severely mentally ill defendant lives in a secured unit of an assisted living facility under a civil guardianship order. People v Cosme, 2023 NY Slip Op 05207, First Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: Here it was apparent defendant suffered from mental health issues. The plea was vacated and the indictment dismissed because the allocution did not make it clear that defendant had made an informed decisions to waive a viable insanity defense. Defendant was returned to an assisted living facility under a civil guardianship order.

 

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