You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS WHO SAID THEY WOULD TEND TO BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that two jurors who stated they would tend to believe the testimony of police officers should have been excused for cause:

The first prospective juror stated in response to a question concerning police officers that she “was raised to respect them” and that, because “they’re the people that are protecting you, you should trust them.” When further probed about weighing the credibility of a police officer’s testimony against a defendant’s testimony, she stated that she would “most likely [believe] the police officer.” The second prospective juror stated that, because of his work as an emergency medical technician, he saw police “in a very positive light.” When asked the same question about whose version of events he would believe, the prospective juror stated “[t]o be completely honest, probably the first responder police officer.”

Further, both prospective jurors repeated that they would likely believe a police officer’s account of an event over a defendant’s version after the court attempted to rehabilitate them … . Thus, their respective affirmative answers when the court asked them if they could be fair and impartial were “insufficient to constitute . . . unequivocal declaration[s]” that they could set aside their stated bias in favor of police officers … . After the court denied his challenges for cause, defendant used peremptory challenges to remove the two prospective jurors from the venire and, therefore, “[b]ecause defendant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges before the completion of jury selection, reversal is required” … . People v Smith, 2023 NY Slip Op 03647, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Here the for cause challenges to two jurors who said they would tend to believe the testimony of police officers should have been granted. Because defendant exhausted all peremptory challenges, reversal was required. The fact that the jurors said they could be fair and impartial was not enough to warrant denial of the challenges.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ENTRY INTO HIS HOME (THE PAYTON ISSUE); THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined the judge should not have found the police entry into defendant’s residence (the Payton issue) was justified by the parole warrant without a hearing to determine validity of the parole warrant:

” … A parole violation warrant by itself justifies the entry of the residence for the purposes of locating and arresting the defendant therein . . . provided that, as here, the officers ‘reasonably believe[d] the defendant to be present’ in the premises … . … Inasmuch as defendant challenged the factual basis for and the continued validity of the parole violation warrant at the time of his arrest, which he alleged was executed solely by police officers unaccompanied by parole officers, that was error.

Pursuant to 9 NYCRR 8004.2 (a), a parole violation warrant cannot be issued without “probable cause to believe that [the parolee] has violated one or more of the conditions of their release.” “Probable cause exists when evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances that would convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is more probable than not that the subject releasee has committed the acts in question” (9 NYCRR 8004.2 [b]). If a parole officer believes that there is probable cause that the parolee has violated a condition of release “in an important respect,” that parole officer is required to report that to the parole board “or a designated officer,” such as a senior parole officer (9 NYCRR 8004.2 [a]), at which time “a notice of violation may be approved” (9 NYCRR 8004.2 [c]) and a warrant for “retaking and temporary detention may [be] issue[d]” by, among others, a designated officer (9 NYCRR 8004.2 [d]). Notably, a parole violation warrant may be administratively canceled “[a]t any time” after it is issued (9 NYCRR 8004.11 [a]).

Here, inasmuch as defendant sufficiently raised the Payton issue in his omnibus motion, and the People’s opposition papers did not resolve the issue as a matter of law, the court should have afforded defendant the opportunity to put the People to their proof regarding the alleged probable cause for the warrant, i.e., absconding, and whether the warrant was still active at the time defendant was arrested … . People v McCracken, 2023 NY Slip Op 03614, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Here the entry into defendant’s home was justified by a parole warrant. Because the defendant challenged the validity of the parole warrant, and the People did not demonstrate its validity in their papers, defendant was entitled to a judicial determination after a hearing.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HIS ASSIGNED COUNSEL WAS BEING PAID BY HIS FAMILY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should have, but did not, conduct an inquiry into defendant’s allegation his assigned counsel was being paid by his family:

… Supreme Court violated his right to counsel when it failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into defendant’s complaint that his assigned counsel accepted payment from his family. … [T]rial courts have the “ongoing duty” to ” ‘carefully evaluate serious complaints about counsel’ ” … . * * *

Here, defendant sent a letter to the court alleging … that his assigned counsel was being paid by his family, which is a serious complaint involving unethical and illegal conduct (see generally County Law § 722-b [4]). Although the court began to engage defense counsel in a discussion concerning defendant’s letter, before defense counsel was able to address the concerns raised by defendant in the letter, the court interjected and said, “You are going to represent [defendant] at trial.” The court then addressed defendant directly and concluded its comments to him by stating … “You are not going to get another attorney.” At no time did the court make any inquiry into defendant’s allegation that his family had paid defense counsel to represent him. … [W]e conclude that the court violated defendant’s right to counsel by failing to make a minimal inquiry concerning his serious complaint … . People v Jackson, 2023 NY Slip Op 03609, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Here defendant requested new counsel on the ground his assigned attorney was being paid by his family (apparently a violation of County Law). The judge’s failure to inquire into the complaint violated defendant’s right to counsel.

 

, , ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AT THE TIME OF THE STREET STOP; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not demonstrate the legality of the street stop at the suppression hearing. The police had a warrant to search defendant’s apartment and anyone in it. Before the warrant was executed, the defendant left the apartment and the SWAT team stopped him. The People relied on the allegation that defendant was violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law at the time of the stop by walking in the middle of the street. The Fourth Department found the evidence of a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation was insufficient. Therefore the People failed to demonstrate the legality of the police conduct:

… [W]here the issue presented is whether the People have demonstrated “the minimum showing necessary” to establish the legality of police conduct, “a question of law is presented for [our] review” … . Here, the court refused to suppress the physical evidence on the ground that the officers’ observation of defendant walking in the roadway provided probable cause for them to believe that defendant had violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which justified the initial stop and the subsequent pursuit of defendant. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1156 (a) requires that, “[w]here sidewalks are provided and they may be used with safety it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.” Here, when asked at the suppression hearing if he had seen defendant “doing anything illegal,” the testifying police officer responded, “[o]ther than walking down the center of the road, no.” Even assuming, arguendo, that we can infer the presence of a sidewalk based on the officer’s response, we conclude that the People failed to establish that a sidewalk was available and that it could “be used with safety” …, especially when considering that defendant was stopped in January in central New York. Nor did the People establish that defendant, by walking “down the center of the road,” violated section 1156 (b), which requires a pedestrian, where sidewalks are not provided, to “walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic” inasmuch as a pedestrian is only required to do so “when practicable.” Thus, we agree with defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing the legality of the police conduct. People v Montgomery, 2023 NY Slip Op 03606, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: At a suppression hearing the People have the initial burden of demonstrating the legality of the police conduct. That issue is a question of law which can be reviewed by an appellate court. Here the stop was based on the allegation defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by walking in the middle of the street. The People made no attempt to show there were sidewalks or, if there were sidewalks, that they were passable in January. The Vehicle and Traffic Law violation was not supported by sufficient proof. The People therefore did not prove the legality of the police conduct and the suppression motion should have been granted.

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S GRABBING AT HIS WAISTBAND AND RUNNING DID NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE SUSPICION, THE MAJORITY HELD DEFENDANT’S STOPPING HIS CAR IN THE STREET AND AGGRESSIVELY APPROACHING A WOMAN IN ANOTHER CAR PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the police had reasonable suspicion defendant was about to commit a crime when he grabbed at his waistband and ran. The police saw the defendant stop his car in the street and aggressively approach another car on foot. When the police told him to stop, he ran. The majority agreed with the dissent that defendant’s grabbing at his waistband did not provide reasonable suspicion he had a weapon. Rather the police saw enough to have reasonable suspicion the defendant was about to commit a crime when he aggressively approached the other car:

We agree with defendant that his arm movements directed at his waistband and his flight would not, without more, justify police pursuit. As the court determined, however, it was reasonable for the officers to suspect that defendant was about to commit a crime because he approached the woman in an aggressive manner with clenched fists while yelling at her. The officers thus properly ordered defendant to stop and could have lawfully frisked him had he not run away. Because the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, we conclude that the subsequent pursuit was also supported by reasonable suspicion, especially considering that, immediately following the stop, defendant turned his back to the officers, grabbed at his waistband, and then fled on foot, leaving his vehicle in the middle of the street with its driver’s door open.

From the dissent:

… [D[efendant’s digging at his waistband, flight, and leaving his car in the street “do not provide additional specific circumstances indicating that defendant was engaged in criminal activity” … . While defendant’s actions, “viewed as a whole, [may have been] suspicious, . . . there is nothing in this record to establish that the officers had a reasonable suspicion” that defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime … . People v Cleveland, 2023 NY Slip Op 03597, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Both the majority and the dissent agreed that defendant’s grabbing at his waistband and running did not provide the police with reasonable suspicion. The majority found that defendant’s stopping his car in the street and aggressively approaching a woman in another car with clenched fists provided the police with reasonable suspicion and justified pursuit. The dissent disagreed.

 

, ,

PRECEDENT DID NOT REQUIRE THE TRIAL JUDGE TO ADMIT, UNDER SANDOVAL, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR CONVICTION SIMILAR TO THE OFFENSE ON TRIAL; RATHER THAT PRECEDENT ONLY HELD EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR CONVICTION SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED SOLELY BASED ON SIMILARITY; THE PREJUDICE VERSUS PROBATIVE-VALUE ANALYSIS SHOULD STILL BE APPLIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge was not bound by Fourth Department precedent to admit, under Sandoval, evidence of a prior possession of a weapon conviction in this criminal possession of a weapon prosecution. The Fourth Department has held that evidence of a prior conviction should not be excluded solely based on similarity with the offense on trial. But here the Fourth Department made clear that the prejudice versus probative-value analysis should still be applied where the crimes are similar:

… [T]he court cited this Court’s decision in People v Stanley (155 AD3d 1684 [4th Dept 2017] …) and advised defense counsel that she “may want to discuss [her arguments] with the Fourth Department,” explaining that Stanley was “their ruling, not my ruling” and that it was “bound by [the Fourth Department’s] rulings.” …

Stanley, however, stands for the proposition that “[c]ross-examination of a defendant concerning a prior crime is not prohibited solely because of the similarity between that crime and the crime charged” … . That means that a Sandoval application by the People should not be automatically denied merely because a prior conviction is similar in nature to the present offense, and certainly does not mean that a court must automatically grant the People’s application. There was nothing in Stanley that “bound” the court in this case and, to the contrary, the court was required to make its own discretionary balancing of the probative value of defendant’s prior conviction against its potential for undue prejudice … . People v Colon, 2023 NY Slip Op 03583, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Precedent holding that, under Sandoval, evidence of a prior conviction should not be excluded solely because it is similar to the crime on trial does not mean that similar crimes should automatically be admitted. The prejudice versus probative-value analysis should be still be applied to similar crimes.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE TOOK ON THE APPEARANCE OF AN ADVOCATE FOR THE PROSECUTION IN QUESTIONING WITNESSES; ROBBERY CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s robbery conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge acted as an advocate for the prosecution when questioning witnesses. The issue was not preserved but the Second Department exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction:

“[A] trial judge is permitted to question witnesses to clarify testimony and to facilitate the progress of the trial, and, if necessary, to develop factual information,” so long as the judge does not take on the function or appearance of an advocate … . Here, the Supreme Court engaged in its own lines of inquiry, which detailed the nature of the surveillance equipment tracking the defendant, elicited a detailed description of the perpetrator and the bags he was carrying, and what the perpetrator was observed doing on the video surveillance camera, asked leading questions as to what the guard saw and heard as the perpetrator left the store and triggered the store alarm, and noted that when the guard approached the perpetrator and asked for the merchandise back, the guard even said, “please,” but the perpetrator still refused to return the items.

The Supreme Court also repeated the perpetrator’s allegedly threatening language, “[K]eep going or watch what’s going to happen to you,” and noted that it looked like the perpetrator was reaching for something and the guard did not want to find out what it was. During the direct examination of the arresting officer, the court elicited the fact that the officer observed a duffel bag containing the stolen property on the subway platform next to the defendant.

Viewing the record as a whole, the Supreme Court took on the function and appearance of an advocate, at times even engaging in a running commentary on the testimony against the defendant. The court’s conduct left the impression that its opinion favored the credibility of the People’s witnesses and the merits of the People’s case … . People v Pulliam, 2023 NY Slip Op 03482, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: A trial judge can ask questions of witnesses but cannot take on the appearance of an advocate for the prosecution.

 

,

THE WASHINGTON DC ATTEMPT TO COMMIT ROBBERY CONVICTION COULD NOT BE THE BASIS OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a Washington DC offense could not be the basis of a second felony offender adjudication. Although the issue was not preserved, the court exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of attempt to commit robbery in Washington, D.C., cannot be used as a predicate felony in New York (see People v Jurgins, 26 NY3d 607, 614-615; see also Penal Law §§ 70.06[1][b][i]; 160.00, 110.00; DC Code §§ 22-2801, 22-2802). Accordingly, we modify the judgment by vacating the defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender and the sentence imposed thereon, and we remit the matter … for resentencing. People v Blaker, 2023 NY Slip Op 03472, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: The Washington DC attempt to commit robbery conviction could not be the basis for a second felony offender adjudication in New York.

 

, ,

THE STATUTE PROHIBITING SEX OFFENDERS FROM BEING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL GROUNDS AS APPLIED TO SEX OFFENDERS CONVICTED BEFORE THE STATUTE WENT INTO EFFECT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE; HERE PETITIONER WAS INCARCERATED PAST HIS PAROLE DATE BECAUSE HOUSING WHICH COMPLIED WITH THE SCHOOL GROUNDS LAW COULD NOT BE FOUND (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, three judges dissenting, determined the statute (Executive Law 259-c [14]) prohibiting sex offenders from being within 1000 feet of school grounds as applied to sex offenders who were convicted before the statute went into effect does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the US Constitution. Here the application of the statute resulted in petitioner remaining incarcerated past his parole release date because housing which met the school-grounds requirement could not be found:

The United States Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits states from “retroactively alter[ing] the definition of crimes or increas[ing] the punishment for criminal acts” … . The ex post facto prohibition “applies only to penal statutes” and “where the challenged statute does not seek to impose a punishment, it does not run afoul of the Ex Post Facto Clause” … . * * *

We are unable to conclude from this record that prolonged incarceration is a common result of Executive Law § 259-c (14), rather than an idiosyncratic effect, and the Supreme Court has “expressly disapproved of evaluating the civil nature of [a statute] by reference to the effect that [statute] has on a single individual” … . Petitioner has failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating, by the clearest proof, that the effects of Executive Law § 259-c (14) are “so punitive . . . as to negate [the legislature’s] intention to deem it civil” … . People ex rel. Rivera v Superintendent, Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 2023 NY Slip Op 03299, CtApp 6-15-23

Practice Point: Here petitioner remained incarcerated past his parole release date because housing which complied with the school-grounds statute (prohibiting sex offenders from being within 1000 feet of school grounds) could not be found. Even though petitioner was convicted before the school-grounds statute was enacted, the majority concluded the statute does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. There were three dissenting judges.

 

,

THE STATUTE PROHIBITING SEX OFFENDERS ON PAROLE FROM BEING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the statute prohibiting a sex offender on parole from being within 1000 feet of school grounds applies to youthful offenders:

The Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA) imposes a mandatory restriction prohibiting a person who is “serving a sentence” for an enumerated offense against a minor victim and is released on parole from coming within 1,000 feet of school grounds (see Executive Law § 259-c [14] …). The question presented in this appeal is whether that restriction applies to youthful offenders. We hold that it does.

Petitioner pleaded guilty to the attempted second-degree rape of a 13-year-old victim … . Petitioner was 18 years old at the time of the offense and was adjudicated a youthful offender … . He was initially sentenced to a 10-year period of probation, but after violating the terms of his probation, he was resentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment. The Board of Parole granted petitioner an open date (that is, the earliest possible release date) of August 2018, subject to numerous conditions of release. As relevant here, petitioner was required to abide by SARA’s school grounds condition and thus would not be released until he identified a SARA-compliant residence. Unable to obtain suitable housing, petitioner remained imprisoned. * * *

The purpose of the school grounds condition is to bar offenders who pose the “highest risk to children” from entering school grounds … . Certainly, someone accorded youthful offender status can fall into this category. While we appreciate that the consequences of imposing the school grounds condition may be severe, the legislature has authorized the imposition of other long-term consequences, such as a lengthy probationary term, on youthful offenders … . And once the youthful offender serves their sentence, the school grounds condition is lifted and the youthful offender will receive the “fresh start” provided to them by statute … . People v Superintendent, Livingston Corr. Facility, 2023 NY Slip Op 03298, CtApp 6-15-23

Practice Point: The statute prohibiting sex offenders on parole from being within 1000 feet of school grounds applies to youthful offenders.

 

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