You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THE DEFENDANT’S ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER CONVICTION RESTED ENTIRELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF A JAILHOUSE INFORMANT WHICH WAS AT ODDS WITH THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO; THE TESTIMONY OF THE INFORMANT WAS REJECTED, RENDERING DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s accomplice-to-murder conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. There was evidence the shooter came to and left the area where the shooting took place in a white sedan. Defendant owned a white sedan but it was not possible to tell whether the white sedan in the surveillance video was defendant’s. The People presented the testimony of a jailhouse informant who claimed defendant admitted dropping off and picking up the shooter. But the evidence given by the informant did not comport with the video surveillance of the white sedan and was therefore rejected by the Fourth Department:

… [W]e find that the version of events that the informant attributed to defendant is completely at odds with the video evidence establishing that the codefendant took an efficient, one-block circuitous route from the side street where the white sedan parked to the bar and then back to the sedan. The timing of events as established by the video evidence is too tight to permit any potential diversions or alternate routes to have been taken by the codefendant, much less the irrational choice of running along a busy thoroughfare several blocks away from the white sedan. Further, the informant’s testimony is too specific to permit the conclusion that any inconsistency between it and the video evidence is the innocuous result of an imprecise account. We therefore conclude that this is an appropriate case to substitute our own credibility determination for that made by the jury and find that the informant’s testimony is not credible ,,, . Absent the informant’s testimony, there is no evidence from which to reasonably infer that defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to cause the death of another person … or that defendant knew that the codefendant was armed at the time defendant transported him to the bar … . People v Ramos, 2023 NY Slip Op 03755, Fourth Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: This decision is a clear example of the difference between a “legal sufficiency of the evidence” and a “weight of the evidence” analysis. Here the informant’s testimony describing a jailhouse confession by the defendant rendered the evidence legally sufficient. However the informant’s testimony was deemed incredible because it conflicted with the video evidence. The informant’s testimony was rejected by the appellate court rendering the conviction against the weight of the evidence.

Practice Point: If you search this website by clicking on the category “Criminal Law” and type “weight of the evidence” in the search bar, you will find many cases which are decided using the “weight of the evidence” label but which actually find the evidence legally insufficient. Appellate courts are now willing to reverse convictions as against the weight of the evidence where the legal sufficiency argument was not raised in the trial order of dismissal motion or where the TOD motion was not renewed upon the close of proof. Therefore, if there are deficiencies in the proof at trial, even if the legal insufficiency argument cannot be raised on appeal because it was not preserved, the “weight of the evidence” argument should be raised.

 

 

,

THE SPEEDY TRIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WERE VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the juvenile delinquency adjudication and dismissing the petition, determined the speedy trial requirements were violated:

“Where [a] juvenile is not detained, an adjudication on the merits of the petition’s charges, known as the ‘fact-finding’ phase of the process, ‘shall commence not more than [60] days after the conclusion of the initial appearance,’ subject to adjournments for good cause and special circumstances” (…Family Ct Act § 340.1 [2]). A court may adjourn a fact-finding hearing “on its own motion or on motion of the presentment agency for good cause shown for . . . not more than [30] days if the respondent is not in detention” and “[t]he court shall state on the record the reason for any adjournment of the fact-finding hearing” … . However, “a judicial referral for adjustment under Family C[t] Act § 320.6 operates to toll the limitations period set forth in Family C[t] Act § 340.1” … . “Efforts at adjustment . . . may not extend for a period of more than three months without leave of the court, which may extend the period for an additional two months” … .

Here, the record establishes that the initial appearance on the petition was on February 1, 2021, at which time respondent appeared with counsel, was arraigned and entered a general denial to the petition (see Family Ct Act §§ 320.1; 320.4). Measured from the February 1 initial appearance date, 273 days passed before the scheduled November 1, 2021 fact-finding hearing.[FN3] Of the 273 days, tolling for the entire adjustment period of 153 days[*3], leaves 120 days before the scheduled fact-finding hearing, well-beyond the initial 60-day speedy trial period, as well as the 90-day speedy trial period, assuming without deciding that the 30-day adjournment was properly granted (see Family Ct Act § 340.1 [4], [5]). As such, the speedy trial requirements relative to juvenile delinquency proceedings were violated and the petition must be dismissed. Matter of Zachary L., 2023 NY Slip Op 03735, Third Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: The speedy trial requirements for a juvenile delinquency proceeding, explained in this decision, were violated.

 

, ,

AT THE TIME OF THE JUVENILE’S ADMISSION TO POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY THE JUDGE DID NOT INFORM HIM OR HIS MOTHER OF THE EXACT NATURE OF HIS “PLACEMENT OUTSIDE THE HOME OR ITS POSSIBLE DURATION” AS REQUIRED BY FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 3213(1); ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the juvenile’s admission in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, determined the juvenile and his mother were not adequately informed of the consequences of the admission to possession of stolen property:

… [T]he allocution in which respondent admitted to [possession of stolen property] was fatally defective because Family Court … failed to comply with the requirements of Family Ct Act § 321.3 (1). At the time of his admission, Family Court commented on some possible dispositions including being “placed outside of [his] home . . . for a period of time.” Neither respondent nor his mother were informed of “the exact nature of his placement outside of the home or its possible duration” … . “Inasmuch as the provisions of Family Ct Act § 321.3 (1) are mandatory and cannot be waived, the order must be reversed” … . Matter of Tashawn MM., 2023 NY Slip Op 03745, Third Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: At the time of a juvenile’s admission in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the juvenile must be informed of the exact nature of any “placement outside of the home and its possible duration.” The failure to so inform the juvenile requires reversal of the placement order.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PURCHASE DEALER QUANTITIES OF COCAINE FROM A DEALER (SANCHEZ) AND COOKED CRACK COCAINE FOR THAT DEALER WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO ORGANIZE OR LEAD THE DEALER’S DISTRIBUTION NETWORK; CONSPIRACY CONVICTON REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conspiracy to distribute cocaine conviction, determined the conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

… [D]efendant’s conviction of conspiracy in the second degree based upon the underlying crime of operating as a major trafficker is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The evidence presented by the People shows only that defendant intended to purchase dealer quantities of cocaine from Sanchez and cooked crack cocaine for Sanchez when requested, but wholly fails to connect defendant to Sanchez’s broader cocaine dealing network, as defendant was not linked to any of the stash houses or the other individuals with whom Sanchez was in contact. Although Penal Law § 220.77 (1) does not contain a defined mens rea term, it is not a strict liability crime (see Penal Law § 15.15 [2]), and its plain language requires proof that defendant engaged in conduct constituting the administration, organization or leadership of a controlled substance organization. The proof offered by the People does not set forth a valid line of reasoning to permissibly infer that this specific intent was met here. While defendant’s purchase of dealer quantities of cocaine from Sanchez and an agreement to cook crack cocaine for him might be sufficient to establish his knowledge of a broader cocaine distribution network … , they are not sufficient to infer that defendant intended Sanchez to administer, organize or lead a controlled substance organization, as the knowledge of such an organization is not equivalent to the intent to control one. People v Lundy, 2023 NY Slip Op 03727, Third Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: Conspiracy is a specific intent crime. Here the fact that defendant intended to purchase dealer quantities of cocaine from a dealer and cooked crack cocaine for the dealer was not legally sufficient evidence of the intent that the dealer administer, organize or lead a drug organization. The conspiracy conviction was vacated.

 

,

ALLOWING A POLICE OFFICER TO NARRATE A VIDEO ALLEGEDLY DEPICTING THE DEFENDANT COMMITTING ASSAULT WAS REVERIBLE ERROR; THE FUNCTION OF THE JURY WAS USURPED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating some of defendant’s convictions, determined it was error to allow a police officer to interpret the video alleged to depict defendant committing assault:

… [T]he trial court should have precluded the testimony of a police detective regarding his opinion as to what a video of the assault on the first victim depicted. Such testimony improperly usurped the jury’s function by interpreting, summarizing, and marshaling the evidence, and was improperly admitted into evidence as relevant to the detective’s investigation. Rather than aiding the jury in understanding the investigation, the detective improperly narrated the video and the detective’s interpretation of the video, which was not necessarily supported by the video itself, also improperly “instruct[ed] the jury on the existence of the facts needed to satisfy the elements of the charged offense” … . The error cannot be deemed harmless with regard to the convictions of assault in the first degree and gang assault in the first degree, which stemmed from the assault upon the first victim, and with regard to the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt of those crimes, without reference to the error, was not overwhelming, and it cannot be said that there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant on those charges had it not been for the error … . People v Ramos, 2023 NY Slip Op 03709, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: It was the jury’s role to interpret a video of the assault. Allowing a police officer to narrate the video usurped the function of the jury.

 

, , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO AN ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE GUILTY PLEA ENTERED BY A NON-TESTIFYING PARTICIPANT IN THE SHOOTING (DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM); DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT REQUEST THE ACCOMPLICE JURY INSTRUCTION (WHICH REQUIRES CORROBORATION OF THE ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY) OR THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. An accomplice, Brenda, testified that another accomplice, Roberto, had pled guilty for his role in the shooting and Roberto’s cooperation agreement was placed in evidence with Brenda on the stand. Brenda also testified that defendant made incriminating statements after the shooting. Although the prosecution had informed defense counsel Roberto would be called as a witness, Roberto was not called. Defendant was therefore deprived of right to confront Roberto. In addition, the accomplice jury instruction was not requested or given and the missing witness jury instruction was not requested or given:

… [D]efense counsel failed to object to evidence elicited by the People pertaining to the guilty plea of Roberto, a nontestifying alleged accomplice, including the introduction into evidence of the cooperation agreement in which Roberto agreed to give “meaningful and truthful information” concerning the shooting. The admission of this evidence violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him … . * * *

… [D]efense counsel failed to request either an accomplice-in-law or accomplice-in-fact jury instruction with respect to Brenda’s testimony. Since accomplice testimony is “marked by obvious self-interest,” a defendant “‘may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense'” … . * * *

… [D]efense counsel failed to timely request a missing witness charge … . People v Alvarenga, 2023 NY Slip Op 03704, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: Defense counsel was deemed ineffective (1) for failing to assert defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him when an accomplice testified about a non-testifying participant in the shooting, (2) for failing to request the accomplice jury instruction, and (3) in failing to request the missing witness jury instruction.

 

,

RESPONDENT JUVENILE WAS NOT INFORMED THE FACT FINDING HEARING IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WOULD GO FORWARD IN HIS ABSENCE (THE PARKER WARNING); THEREFORE RESPONDENT DID NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AND THE ADJUDICATION WAS REVERSED BECAUSE OF HIS ABSENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

​The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, determined that the respondent juvenile was not informed that the fact finding hearing would proceed in his absence. Therefore he did not not waive his right to be present at the hearing:

Respondent contends that the court violated his constitutional and statutory right to be present at the fact-finding hearing. We agree, and we therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings on the petition. “[R]espondents in juvenile delinquency proceedings have a constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of court proceedings, including fact-finding hearings … . Respondents “may, however, waive the right to be present at such proceedings” … . ” ‘In order to effect a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver, the [respondent] must, at a minimum, be informed in some manner of the nature of the right to be present at [the fact-finding hearing] and the consequences of failing to appear’ for that hearing” … . Here, the court did not advise respondent that he had a right to be present at the fact-finding hearing and that the consequence of his failure to appear would be that the fact-finding hearing would proceed in his absence (see generally People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141 [1982]). We therefore conclude on this record that there is no voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of respondent’s right to be present at the hearing … . Matter of Timar P. (James B.), 2023 NY Slip Op 03654, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: The Parker warning is required in juvenile delinquency proceedings in Family Court.

 

,

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.

 

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