You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THE JUDGE’S POLICY OF NOT LETTING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INTO THE COURTROOM DURING TESTIMONY HAD THE UNINTENDED EFFECT OF EXCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP) ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the procedure imposed by the judge effectively prevented members of the murder victim’s family from attending parts of the trial. Although the judge did not mean to exclude members of the public from the trial, the judge’s policy of not letting members of the public into the courtroom during testimony was improperly implemented and had the unintended result of excluding members of the public. The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge concurrence, ordered a new trial:

The trial judge is in charge of the courtroom and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that any limitation on a defendant’s right to a public trial conforms with constitutional dictates. At defendant’s trial, the judge delegated to court officers the implementation of the judge’s general policy of prohibiting the public from entering or exiting the courtroom while a witness testifies. We agree with the Appellate Division that members of the public were excluded from the courtroom at a time when they should have had access under the terms of the extant policy. But, contrary to the Appellate Division’s conclusion, that error directly resulted from the acts of court officials enforcing the trial judge’s order. Therefore, the court violated defendant’s right to a public trial. People v Muhammad, 2023 NY Slip Op 02756, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: Even if the judge did not intend to exclude members of the public from the trial, the judge’s policy of not allowing anyone to enter the courtroom during testimony had that effect. New trial ordered.

 

,

THE JUDGE CLOSED THIS MURDER TRIAL TO THE PUBLIC CITING “INTIMIDATION” BY SPECTATORS AND THE POSTING OF A PHOTO OF THE TRIAL ON INSTAGRAM; THE SPARSE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT CLOSING THE COURTROOM, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the record did not support holding the murder trial in a courtroom closed to the public. The judge reacted to spectators deemed “intimidating” and the posting on Instagram of a photo taken in the courtroom with a caption supporting the defendant:

… [T]he People moved to close the courtroom, citing the fact that photographs had been taken in the courtroom and posted on Instagram with the caption “Free Dick Wolf”—which the prosecutor asserted was a reference to one of defendant’s street names. After an off-the-record discussion with counsel, the court noted its concern with the photographs, and added that

“[p]eople in the courtroom have been very intimidating. . . . They intimidated a court reporter already. They stare people down. They’re staring up here. I am closing this courtroom based on the fact that now there are pictures that were taken in this courtroom. And I know that pictures can be taken very [surreptitiously] with a cellphone. You can look like you’re looking at your cellphone when you’re really taking pictures. But clearly pictures were taken in this courtroom by someone who had to have been sitting in this courtroom and pictures were taken outside the court. I’m closing the courtroom.”  * * *

Although the prevention of intimidation by spectators during trial may very well be an “overriding interest” that can support courtroom closure … , it is incumbent on the trial court to ensure that the record adequately justifies its concerns and demonstrates that the identified interest would be jeopardized absent a closure. Where closure is warranted, it must be tailored to address the overriding interest. Here, the court ordered the broadest possible closure, completely excluding all members of the public for the remainder of trial. On this sparse record the closure was disproportionate in relation to the circumstances described. People v Reid, 2023 NY Slip Op 02755, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: Closing the courtroom during a trial is a drastic measure which must be justified on the record. Here the sparse record was deemed insufficient and a new trial was ordered.

 

, ,

IN THESE TWO CASES, INTRUDERS ENTERED AN APARTMENT BUILDING THROUGH EXTERIOR DOORS WHICH, ALLEGEDLY, WERE UNLOCKED AND MURDERED VICTIMS WHO WERE SPECIFICALLY TARGETED; THE FACT THAT THE VICTIMS WERE TARGETED WAS NOT AN “INTERVENING ACT” WHICH RELIEVED THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY AS A MATTER OF LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Second Department and reversing the First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the fact that the murder victims were targeted did not relieve the landlord, here the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA), of liability for the alleged failure to provide exterior doors with functioning locks:

… [W]hen the issue of proximate cause involves an intervening act, “liability turns on whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence” … . It is “[o]nly where ‘the intervening act is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct,’ [that it] may possibly ‘break[ ] the causal nexus’ ” … . But “[a]n intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility, where the risk of the intervening act occurring is the very same risk which renders the actor negligent” … .

Here, the risk created by the nonfunctioning door locks—that intruders would gain access to the building and harm residents—is exactly the “risk that came to fruition” … . It was not the trial court’s role, on summary judgment, to assess the fact-bound question of whether the intruders … would have persevered in their attacks had the doors been securely locked. This is not to say that the sophistication and planning of an attack is irrelevant to the factfinder’s determination of proximate cause, or even that it could never rise to such a degree that it would sever the proximate causal link as a matter of law … . But neither [scenario here] approaches that level. Scurry v New York City Hous. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 02752, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: The fact that the victims were specifically targeted by intruders who entered the apartment buildings through doors alleged to have been unlocked did not relieve the landlord of liability under an “intervening act” theory. The requirement that exterior doors be locked addresses the risk at issue in these cases.

 

​ DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED VIRTUALLY AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT; RESENTENCING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant was entitled to be resentenced because the sentencing was virtual and defendant did not waive his right to be present:

… [D]efendant is entitled to be resentenced because he had a right to be personally present at his sentencing, and he did not expressly waive that right during the virtual proceeding (see CPL 380.40[1] …). People v Barksdale, 2023 NY Slip Op 02744, First Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: For a virtual sentencing to be valid, the defendant must waive his right to be present.

 

, ,

THE CONVICTION UPON WHICH DEFENDANT’S SECOND-FELONY-OFFENDER STATUS WAS BASED WAS MORE THAN 10 YEARS BEFORE THE CURRENT OFFENSE AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY PORTION OF THE 10-YEAR PERIOD WAS TOLLED BY INCARCERATION; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING AND RESENTENCING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender and remitting the matter for a hearing. determined the People did not submit evidence demonstrating when defendant was incarcerated such that the 10-year look-back period for the prior felony conviction could be calculated. The court noted that the issue need not be preserved for appeal:

… [D]efendant contends that he was not properly sentenced as a second felony offender. … [D]efendant was not required to preserve such a claim where, as here, the purported illegality is plain “from the face of the appellate record” … . … [W]e agree with defendant that the record reflects that his April 11, 2011 sentence on his predicate felony conviction was imposed more than 10 years before the commission of the instant offense, which occurred on July 6, 2021 … , and the People failed to meet their burden of showing that the 10-year look-back period was tolled by any periods of incarceration … . At sentencing, defendant admitted to the prior offense, but the People’s predicate felony statement did not set forth defendant’s dates of incarceration … . Since the record fails to disclose the legality of sentencing defendant as a second felony offender, the matter must be remitted for a hearing on this issue and resentencing … . People v McCall, 2023 NY Slip Op 02719, Third Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: Here the People’s failure to submit proof of defendant’s prior incarceration made it impossible to determine whether the 10-year look-back period for a prior felony was tolled. Defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender was vacated and the matter was remitted for a hearing and resentencing.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of assault second:

The victim testified that defendant delivered a very hard blow to his face, that he felt pain, and that he experienced bleeding and swelling. Hospital records describe the victim’s pain as “aching” and indicate he was directed to take over-the-counter painkillers. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, it was sufficient to establish physical injury for the purposes of Penal Law § 120.05 (3) … . People v Wheeler, 2023 NY Slip Op 02736. CtApp 5-18-23

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, found the evidence of physical injury sufficient to support the assault second conviction.

 

,

THE INDICTMENT COUNT CHARGING AGGRAVATED FAMILY OFFENSE DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH OF THE LISTED OFFENSES WAS THE BASIS OF THE CHARGE, RENDERING THE COUNT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, determined the count of the indictment charging aggravated family offense (Penal Law 240.75) was jurisdictionally defective because it did not specify which of the offenses listed in the statute was the basis of the charge:

A defendant commits the crime of aggravated family offense pursuant to Penal Law § 240.75 when the defendant “commits a misdemeanor defined in subdivision two of this section as a specified offense and [the defendant] has been convicted of one or more specified offenses within the immediately preceding five years” (Penal Law § 240.75 [1]). Subdivision two of the statute contains 54 “specified offense[s],” 36 felonies and 18 misdemeanors … . To qualify as a specified offense, the defendant and the person against whom the offense was committed must be members of the same family or household as defined in CPL 530.11 (1) (see id. § 240.75 [2]) … . Thus, to commit the crime of aggravated family offense, a defendant must have been convicted of one or more of the specified offenses in subdivision two of the statute within the previous five years, the defendant must have currently committed one of the misdemeanor offenses listed in subdivision two, and both offenses must be committed against a member of the same family or household as the defendant.

Defendant contends that the failure to specify the current misdemeanor offense in the count of the indictment charging him with aggravated family offense rendered that count jurisdictionally defective … . We agree. People v Saenger, 2023 NY Slip Op 02735, CtApp 5-18-23

Practice Point: The aggravated family offense count did not specify the current misdemeanor offense on which the count was based, rendering the count jurisdictionally defective.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS OBSERVED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS STREET STOP DID NOT MEET THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A CRIME OR WAS IN POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” STANDARD; THE FRISK WAS THEREFORE ILLEGAL AND THE SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division and dismissing the indictment, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, and an extensive concurring opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the police did not have reasonable suspicion defendant had committed a crime or was in possession of a weapon at the time defendant was frisked. The drugs found on defendant’s person should have been suppressed:

Mr. Johnson’s [defendant’s] actions, as observed by Officer Pike, do not meet the minimum standard required to justify a stop and frisk under De Bour. Prior to the frisk, Officer Pike observed Mr. Johnson: (1) move from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat of his parked car; (2) move his upper torso back toward the driver’s seat; (3) pull up his pants and attempt to buckle his belt; and (4) appear nervous while being questioned. These circumstances do not support a reasonable view that Mr. Johnson was armed or that he had committed or was about to commit a crime. These actions “constituted [nothing] other than ‘innocuous behavior,’ sole reliance on which would impermissibly reduce the foundation for [this] intrusion to nothing but ‘whim or caprice’ ” … . People v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 02734, CtApp 5-18-23

Practice Point: Here the Court of Appeals determined the defendant’s actions prior to the stop and frisk did not rise to the “reasonable suspicion” standard. The police observed defendant move to the passenger seat in his parked car, move his upper torso back toward the driver’s seat, pull up his pants and attempt to buckle his belt, and appear nervous when questioned. The stop and frisk was illegal and the seized drugs should have been suppressed.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO A LEVEL ONE BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN AT LIBERTY FOR 17 YEARS WITHOUT REOFFENDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled a downward departure to level one because he had been at liberty for 17 years without reoffending:

In light of the purpose of SORA, which is to assess the risk that the offender poses while at liberty, lengthy periods during which the defendant has been at liberty after the offense are significant in determining the risk of reoffense and the danger posed in the event of reoffense … . Since these periods are not taken into account in the risk assessment instrument, they are a permissible ground for departure … . Here, the defendant was released from prison for the underlying sex offense in 2002. In the time between his release and the SORA hearing, which was held in 2019, the defendant was at liberty for approximately 17 years without reoffending. In light of the lengthy amount of time without reoffense, we designate the defendant a level one sex offender … . People v Gurley, 2023 NY Slip Op 02686, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant was entitled to a downward departure to a level one sex offender because he had been at liberty for 17 years without reoffending.

 

,

THE WITNESS’S TRIAL TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT SEE THE PERPETRATOR’S FACE AND DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT FIRE A GUN MERELY FAILED TO CORROBORATE OR BOLSTER THE PEOPLE’S CASE, IT DID NOT CONTRADICT OR DISPROVE ANY EVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THE WITNESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the prosecutor should not have been allowed to impeach her own witness because the witness’s testimony merely failed to corroborate or bolster the People’s case, it did not contradict or disprove any evidence. The witness testified he did not see the perpetrator’s face and did not see defendant fire a gun:

” … [B]efore a party may impeach its own witness, the testimony on a ‘material fact’ must ‘tend[ ] to disprove the party’s position or affirmatively damage[ ] the party’s case'” … . “Trial testimony that the witness has no knowledge of or cannot recall a particular event, whether truthful or not, does not affirmatively damage the People’s case” … . People v Sams, 2023 NY Slip Op 02684, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: In order to impeach their own witness, the witness’s testimony must have contradicted or disproved the People’s case. Here the witness’s testimony that he did not see the perpetrator’s face and did not see the defendant fire a gun merely failed to corroborate or bolster the People’s case, it did not disprove or contradict any evidence. Even if the testimony was untrue, the People should not have been allowed to impeach their own witness.

 

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