Criminal Law – Page 73 – New York Appellate Digest

THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF THE MURDER FIRST DEGREE CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s convictions in this arson-murder case, noted that the two murder second degree counts were conclusory concurrent counts of the murder first degree count and must be dismissed:

… [T]he judgment must be modified, as the two counts of murder in the second degree upon which defendant was convicted are inclusory concurrent counts of the count of murder in the first degree, upon which he was also convicted (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b]). We therefore reverse his convictions for murder in the second degree and dismiss the corresponding counts in the indictment … . People v Truitt, 2023 NY Slip Op 01028, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: Here the murder second degree counts were dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of murder first degree.

February 23, 2023

Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, Evidence

THE PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE THE DOCUMENT OFFERED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S MASSACHUSETTS CONVICTION CERTIFIED PURSUANT TO CPLR 4540; SECOND FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender, determined the proof of the Massachusetts conviction which was the basis for the second felony offender status was deficient:

… [T]he People offered a copy of a “warrant” transferring defendant from local custody to state prison, as well as a copy of defendant’s public docket report. Both documents reflect defendant’s conviction in Massachusetts of armed robbery, bear the seal of the Massachusetts Superior Court and contain the signature of a court official attesting that such documents are true copies. However, the People’s submissions “lacked the certificate, under seal, showing that the attestor was the legal custodian of the records and that this signature was genuine as required by CPLR 4540 [c]” … As a result of such failure, we vacate defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender, as well as the resulting sentence, and remit this matter to County Court for a new second felony offender hearing, at which time the People will have an opportunity to overcome the technical deficiencies in their proof … . People v Caraballo, 2023 NY Slip Op 01029, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: To prove a foreign conviction the relevant document must be certified in accordance with CPLR 4540 (c).

February 23, 2023

Appeals, Criminal Law, Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE REQUIRED 20-DAY NOTICE OF THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING, HE CAN APPEAL THE UPWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL THREE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined petitioner could appeal the 2006 level three sex offender risk level classification, despite his failure to appear at the hearing, because he was not given 20-days notice prior to the hearing:

Although the hearing took place on June 25, 2003, defendant was only advised of it in a letter dated June 11, 2003.Accordingly, defendant’s due process rights were violated given that he was not afforded the minimum 20-day notice as required by statute … . The People respond that defendant explained in a letter sent after the June 2003 hearing that he chose not to attend that hearing because he did not think he would be classified at risk level three. This letter, however, postdated the hearing and any explanation made therein does not amount to a waiver of the right to appear at the hearing. Furthermore, defendant’s posthearing explanation does not obviate the notice requirements that defendant must be statutorily given prior to the hearing. People v Lockrow, 2023 NY Slip Op 01030, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: Here defendant was not given the required 20-day notice of the upcoming SORA risk level hearing, which violated his due process rights. He therefore could appeal the upward departure to level three.

February 23, 2023

Criminal Law, Evidence

ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WARRANT DESCRIBED THE RESIDENCE AS HAVING TWO ENTRANCE DOORS, ONE LEADING TO THE AREA WHERE THE INFORMANT SAW THE FIREARMS AND ONE LEADING TO A STAIRWAY TO THE SECOND FLOOR (WHICH THE INFORMANT HAD NOT VISITED), THE WARRANT WAS NOT SEVERABLE AND WAS THEREFORE OVERBROAD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found the search warrant overly broad and suppressed the seized evidence. The warrant described the premises to be searched as having two exterior doors, one leading to the area described by the confidential informant who had seen firearms there, and the other leading to stairs to the second floor. The informant had never been upstairs and nothing was seized from upstairs. The issue was whether the part of the warrant which authorized the search of the upstairs could be severed from the part of the warrant describing the area visited by the informant. The court reasoned that severance would be justified if the warrant described two separate apartments. But because the warrant described the premises as a single residence, it was overbroad:

Unlike the warrant in Hansen [38 NY2d 17], which authorized the search of two obviously separate places—a home and a vehicle—the language of the warrant in this case was ambiguous, and failed to clearly delineate whether it authorized a search of a single residence or two separate residences. The warrant did refer to the premises as a “two-family home,” with a “right main entrance” that led to “a living room, a kitchen, and bedrooms,” and a “left main entrance,” which led to “a set of stairs that lead up to a living room, a kitchen and bedrooms,” which may have suggested that the building contained two separate apartments. Yet, the warrant referred to the premises as the “Subject Location” and “the residence,” and instead of using words like “apartment” or “unit,” it referred to the rooms on the first floor as being “at the residence,” and referred to the rooms on the second floor as being “at the rear of the residence.”

In light of this ambiguity, a reviewing court could not determine that the warrant authorized the search of two separate places without impermissibly engaging in “retrospective surgery, dehors the language of the warrant, [to] cut away the illegal portions of the area to be searched and by judicially revised description save evidence recovered from a more narrowly limited area” … . People v Capers, 2023 NY Slip Op 01011, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals has held that where a warrant describes two distinct areas to be searched, a vehicle and a residence for example, and the search of one of the areas was not supported by probable cause, the warrant may be severed. Here, although there were two entrances to the premises, it was described as a single residence and therefore was not severable.

February 22, 2023

Criminal Law, Evidence

DEFENDANT WAS NOT FREE TO LEAVE AFTER A STREET STOP AND WAS INTERROGATED WITHOUT HAVING BEEN AFFORDED THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and suppressing defendant’s statements, determined defendant was in custody after a street stop and was interrogated without the Miranda warnings:

At a pretrial suppression hearing, a police officer testified … he stopped the defendant and another male, both of whom matched the description of individuals suspected of leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident where a motorcyclist had been struck. At that time, the defendant and the other male were detained and were not “free to leave.” Further, at least ten police vehicles responded to the location, along with several officers.

Thereafter, without advising the defendant of his Miranda rights … , a state trooper asked the defendant his name and performed a “quick cursory pat down” of the defendant’s person. The state trooper then engaged in what he indicated was a “more detailed conversation” with the defendant. Specifically, the state trooper inquired whether the defendant was the operator of the subject vehicle. According to the state trooper, in response thereto, the defendant initially admitted that he was the operator of that vehicle, but then “quickly corrected himself and stated that he took the train” to the location. The state trooper proceeded to ask the defendant additional details relating to the train trip, including “which train he took to that location, which stop he got off at, and where his trip began.” The state trooper testified that the defendant “couldn’t give . . . an answer to any of those questions.” At the time that the state trooper asked these questions, the defendant was placed with his hands on the hood of a police car. Additionally, the “entire street was pretty much blocked off by police vehicles.” People v Trice, 2023 NY Slip Op 01015, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant was stopped on the street and several police vehicles and ten police officers were at the scene. A state trooper questioned him while defendant was standing with his hands on the hood of a police car. The defendant was in custody and had not been afforded the Miranda warnings. His statements should have been suppressed.

February 22, 2023

Criminal Law, Evidence

THE EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED THE SEIZED SUBSTANCES CONTAINED HEROIN OR COCAINE RELIED ON COMPARISONS WITH STANDARD SAMPLES IN THEIR LABS BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF THE SAMPLES; THEREFORE THE EXPERTS’ OPINIONS RELIED ON EVIDENCE NOT IN THE RECORD; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the convictions which relied on expert evidence that the seized substances contained cocaine or heroin, determined the experts relied on evidence which was not in the record. Therefore a proper foundation had not been laid for the conclusions that the substances contained cocaine and heroin:

Here, each of the People’s five experts testified to arriving at the conclusion that the substance tested was either heroin or cocaine by comparing the substance with a standard sample in the laboratory that was known to be heroin or cocaine. When questioned about the accuracy of the known standard, the experts testified generally that the sample reference material was obtained from chemical manufacturers. Some of the experts testified that the samples came with certifications, which might have established the sample’s accuracy, but no such certifications were offered into evidence. Some of the experts testified that the sample reference material generally is tested upon arrival at the laboratory, but none of the experts could testify to personal knowledge of the testing of the known standard that she or he used in this case, and the People did not introduce any evidence establishing that such independent testing had occurred. …

Although an expert’s testimony that a substance contains a narcotic drug may be admissible when it is not based solely upon comparative tests using known standards, but is also based on other tests not involving known standards, or other facts in evidence … , here, two of the experts relied solely upon the comparative tests, and their testimony should have been stricken …. Further, while the other three experts testified that before using the comparative tests to confirm the identity of the substance, she or he employed one or more presumptive tests, each of those presumptive tests merely demonstrated the possibility that cocaine or heroin might be present in the substance, but did not confirm the presence of the narcotic drug. It was the comparison to the known standard that enabled each expert to conclude that the substance tested was heroin or cocaine … . People v Ramis, 2023 NY Slip Op 01013, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: If an expert’s opinion relies on information that is not in the record, a proper foundation for the opinion has not been laid. Here the experts’ opinions that seized substances contained cocaine and heroin were based on comparison with samples in the lab, but no evidence demonstrating the accuracy of the samples was presented.

February 22, 2023

Criminal Law, Judges

A RESTITUTION HEARING IS REQUIRED WHEN (1) THE DEFENDANT REQUESTS IT, AND (2) WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE AMOUNT IS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, clarified when a restitution hearing is required:

Pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27, in sentencing a criminal defendant, the court may require the defendant to pay restitution of the fruits of an offense for which he or she was convicted. Under certain circumstances set forth in the statute, the court must first conduct a hearing to determine the appropriate amount of restitution. However, this Court’s case law has not consistently articulated the circumstances which trigger the need for a restitution hearing in accordance with the statute. Thus, we take this opportunity to clarify that a restitution hearing is required when either (1) the defendant requests such a hearing, or (2) the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish the appropriate amount of restitution. People v Chung, 2023 NY Slip Op 00880, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: A restitution hearing is required when a defendant requests it and when the evidence of the amount is insufficient.

February 15, 2023

Appeals, Criminal Law, Judges

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL; THE APPELLATE COURT CANNOT TREAT THE FAILURE TO RULE AS A DENIAL; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a ruling, determined the trial judge never ruled on defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal:

At the close of the People’s case, defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal, arguing … that the People failed to make a prima facie case with respect to the second count of the indictment. There is no indication in the record that the court ruled on that part of defendant’s motion. We lack the power to review defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of burglary in the second degree because, “in accordance with People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]) and People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998], rearg denied 93 NY2d 849 [1999]), we cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . motion as a denial thereof” … . People v Desmond, 2023 NY Slip Op 00791, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: The trial judge’s failure to rule on a motion for a trial order of dismissal is not a denial which an appellate court can consider; here the matter was remitted for a ruling.

February 10, 2023

Criminal Law, Evidence, Judges

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT CLAIMED THE STABBING INJURIES WERE ACCIDENTAL, HE WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY INTSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed on the justification defense despite his claim the stabbing injuries were an accident. Defendant alleged the complainant attacked him with a knife and, in self-defense, he grabbed her arm and pinned it behind her back, causing the injuries. The court noted that the trial judge stuck with his opinion the justification defense is not available when it is alleged the injury was accidental or unintentional after he was presented with case law to the contrary:

It has long been settled law that “[a] defendant is entitled to a justification charge if there is some reasonable view of the evidence to support it, even if the defendant alleges that the victim’s injuries were accidentally inflicted” … . That is so because “the defense of justification applies fully to a defendant’s risk-creating conduct, even though it had unintended consequences” … . Here, defendant’s statements during his interview with a police investigator, an audio recording of which was introduced in evidence by the People, indicated that the stabbing injuries sustained by the complainant were the unintended result of defendant’s defensive maneuvers. In particular, defendant asserted that the complainant, while intoxicated, confronted him with a knife and swung it at him, thereby prompting him to act defensively by twisting the complainant’s arm behind her back with the knife still in her hand and pinning it against her. Contrary to the court’s determination, defendant’s statements “do[ ] not defeat his entitlement to a justification charge” … . People v Rayford, 2023 NY Slip Op 00786, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: A defendant’s claim that the injuries were accidentally or unintentionally inflicted does not necessarily preclude a jury instruction on the justification defense.

February 10, 2023

Criminal Law, Evidence, Privilege

THE RECORDED CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE 15-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT AND HIS FATHER IN THE POLICE INTERVIEW ROOM IS PROTECTED BY PARENT-CHILD PRIVILEGE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s murder convictions, determined the recorded conversation between the 15-year-old defendant and his father in the interview room at the police station was protected by parent-child privilege and should have been suppressed. The defendant had requested a lawyer and the police had left the interview room at the time the conversation was recorded:

We conclude that a parent-child privilege did arise under the circumstances of this case … . The application of the privilege is not dependent on a finding of police misconduct … . … [W]e recognize, as other courts have, that a young defendant will naturally look to a parent “as a primary source of help and advice” … The statements defendant now seeks to suppress were made in an attempt to utilize his father as such a source of assistance. “It would not be consistent with basic fairness to exact as a price for that assistance, his acquiescence to the overhearing presence of government agents” … . People v Kemp, 2023 NY Slip Op 00776, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: Here the Fourth Department recognized a parent-child privilege and suppressed a recorded conversation between the 15-year-old defendant and his father which took place in the police interview room. The defendant had just requested a lawyer and the police had left the room. But the recording equipment was still operating.

February 10, 2023

THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF THE MURDER FIRST DEGREE CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

THE PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE THE DOCUMENT OFFERED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S MASSACHUSETTS CONVICTION CERTIFIED PURSUANT TO CPLR 4540; SECOND FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE REQUIRED 20-DAY NOTICE OF THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING, HE CAN APPEAL THE UPWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL THREE (THIRD DEPT).

DEFENDANT WAS NOT FREE TO LEAVE AFTER A STREET STOP AND WAS INTERROGATED WITHOUT HAVING BEEN AFFORDED THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

A RESTITUTION HEARING IS REQUIRED WHEN (1) THE DEFENDANT REQUESTS IT, AND (2) WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE AMOUNT IS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL; THE APPELLATE COURT CANNOT TREAT THE FAILURE TO RULE AS A DENIAL; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT CLAIMED THE STABBING INJURIES WERE ACCIDENTAL, HE WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY INTSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

THE RECORDED CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE 15-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT AND HIS FATHER IN THE POLICE INTERVIEW ROOM IS PROTECTED BY PARENT-CHILD PRIVILEGE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.