You are here: / Criminal Law
,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL ONE; THE PRIOR RAPE (THE JUSTIFICATION FOR COUNTY COURT’S LEVEL THREE DESIGNATION) STEMMED FROM AN ONGOING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM WHO WAS UNABLE TO CONSENT SOLELY BECAUSE OF HER AGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a downward departure to a level one sex offender designation. County Court had designated defendant a lever three offender because of a prior rape-third conviction. The rape-third conviction was based solely on the victim’s inability to consent due to her age. The defendant and the victim had been in a long-term relationship:

… [T]he unusual circumstances established by the defendant … are not accounted for by the Guidelines and tend to demonstrate a lower likelihood of reoffense and danger to the community. With respect to the first felony conviction serving as a predicate for the override, rape in the third degree, the People acknowledged that the victim’s lack of consent was solely by reason of inability to consent because of her age. Further, the record reflects that conduct underlying this crime was an ongoing relationship between the defendant and the victim. During this relationship, a video depicting sexual conduct between the defendant and the victim was taken. This video, depicting the same conduct for which the defendant was convicted of rape in the third degree and designated a level one sex offender, was discovered by a probation officer approximately a year later, and served as the basis for the defendant’s second sex-related felony conviction, possessing a sexual performance by a child. People v Hernandez, 2023 NY Slip Op 00451, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: Here defendant was entitled to a downward departure to a level one sex offender designation. The rape which County Court relied on for a level three designation stemmed from an ongoing relationship with the victim who was unable to consent solely because of her age.

 

,

A PRESENTENCE REPORT MUST BE CREATED FOR EACH OFFENSE; HERE THE JUDGE USED A PRESENTENCE REPORT PREPARED FOR A DIFFERENT UNRELATED OFFENSE; THE SENTENCE WAS ILLEGALLY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the sentencing court should not have used a presentence report created for an earlier, unrelated offense. A unique presentence report for each offense is mandatory:

CPL 390.20 provides that “[i]n any case where a person is convicted of a felony, the court must order a pre-sentence investigation of the defendant and it may not pronounce sentence until it has received a written report of such investigation” (CPL 390.20[1]). This statutory language is mandatory … and a sentencing court’s failure to obtain a presentence report renders the sentence imposed invalid as a matter of law … .

Here, the County Court sentenced the defendant on the murder conviction without ordering or receiving a presentence report relating to the murder conviction. Instead, the court relied on a presentence report prepared in connection with the defendant’s conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, the facts and circumstances of which were not related to the facts and circumstances of the murder conviction. … [T]his did not satisfy the requirements of CPL 390.20, and therefore the sentence was illegally imposed. People v Shearer, 2023 NY Slip Op 00445, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: A judge cannot use a presentence report prepared for one offense in a sentencing for a different, unrelated offense.

 

,

THE INDICTMENT CHARGED DEFENDANT WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON OUTSIDE HIS HOME OR BUSINESS; THE JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY THEY NEED ONLY FIND DEFENDANT POSSESSED A LOADED FIREARM; THE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION WAS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the possession-of-a-weapon conviction, determined the People were required to prove what was alleged in the indictment and the bill of particulars, i.e., that defendant possessed the weapon outside his home or business. The judge charged the jury they need only find defendant has knowingly possessed any firearm:

… [T]he defendant was charged in count 1 of the indictment with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under the theory that, on the date in question, he knowingly possessed a loaded firearm and that such possession was not in his home or place of business (see Penal Law § 265.03[3]). * * *

“Where the prosecution is limited by the indictment or bill of particulars to a certain theory or theories, the court must hold the prosecution to such narrower theory or theories” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the People were required to prove at trial as an element of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree that the possession of the loaded firearm was not in the defendant’s home or place of business (see Penal Law § 265.03[3] …). As the defendant correctly contends, the Supreme Court’s instruction impermissibly removed from the jury’s consideration an element of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree as charged in count 1 of the indictment … . People v Reid, 2023 NY Slip Op 00336, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: The People are constrained to prove what is charged in the indictment and alleged in the bill of particulars. If the judge instructs the jury otherwise, the conviction will be reversed. Here the judge determined defendant had a prior conviction and his possession of a weapon, no matter where, would support a conviction. Therefore, the judge reasoned, the jury need not be instructed that the possession must be outside defendant’s home or business as charged in the indictment. The conviction was reversed.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S RAPE CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON HIS UNCORROBORATED ADMISSION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT). ​

he Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on one count of rape in the second degree, determined there was no corroboration of defendant’s admission to having sex with the victim. Therefore, the conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

After reviewing the record, we find no evidence corroborating defendant’s admission that he and the victim engaged in sexual intercourse “a few times” in August 2017. Due to the lack of corroboration, the evidence is legally insufficient to support that conviction, and the charge under count 1 must be dismissed … . People v Bateman, 2023 NY Slip Op 00249, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: A conviction which rests solely on an uncorroborated admission is not supported by legally sufficient evidence.

 

,

AFTER A JUROR CAME FORWARD DURING DELIBERATIONS TO SAY SHE THOUGHT THE DEFENDANT HAD FOLLOWED HER IN HIS CAR DURING THE TRIAL AND OTHER JURORS EXPRESSED SAFETY CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO TRIAL SPECTATORS, THE JUDGE INTERVIEWED EACH JUROR AND PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON A GROSSLY-UNQUALIFIED-JUROR ARGUMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined County Court properly denied defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion to set aside the verdict on the ground a juror was grossly unqualified. A juror (No. 6) had come forward during deliberations to say she thought the defendant had followed her in his car during the trial and had concerns for her safety. According to Juror No. 6, other jurors expressed safety concerns with respect to spectators at the trial. The judge interviewed each juror and concluded a mistrial should not be granted:

Upon review of the private colloquy between County Court and juror No. 6, we disagree with the dissent’s view that County Court failed to engage in a probing and tactful inquiry taking into due account the juror’s responses. “The [t]rial [j]udge generally is accorded latitude in making the findings necessary to determine whether a juror is grossly unqualified under CPL 270.35, because that [j]udge is in the best position to assess partiality in an allegedly biased juror”  … .The trial court is tasked with “evaluat[ing] the nature of what the juror has seen, heard, or has acquired knowledge of, and assess its importance and its bearing on the case” … . County Court, “[i]n concluding that a juror is grossly unqualified, . . . may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror based on [his or] her equivocal responses. Instead, it must be convinced that the juror’s knowledge will prevent [him or] her from rendering an impartial verdict” … . This Court likewise should not speculate. People v Fisher, 2023 NY Slip Op 00248, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: After a juror came forward during deliberations to say he had concerns for her safety because she thought defendant had followed her in his car during the trial, the trial judge interviewed her and the other jurors. The majority concluded defendant’s motion for a mistrial was properly denied. There was a two-justice dissent.

 

,

​ THE MAJORITY HELD THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH DISORDERLY CONDUCT AS A FAMILY OFFENSE, FINDING THE CONDUCT WAS NOT “PUBLIC;” THE DISSENT ARGUED THE CONDUCT WAS “PUBLIC” IN THAT IT TOOK PLACE IN THE PRESENCE OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN OUTSIDE A DAYCARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the evidence did not establish a family offense (disorderly conduct): The majority and the dissenter disagreed on whether the conduct was “public” in nature:

“[C]ritical to a charge of disorderly conduct is a finding that [the mother’s] disruptive statements and behavior were of a public rather than an individual dimension . . ., which requires proof of an intent to threaten public safety, peace or order” … . “[A] person may be guilty of disorderly conduct only when the situation extends beyond the exchange between the individual disputants to a point where it becomes a potential or immediate public problem” … .

From the dissent:

[The] disruptive behavior outside a daycare program in the direct presence of other adults and children took on a public dimension that was no doubt alarming to the grandmother, the child and the bystanders. Whether intentional or not, such conduct satisfies the reckless component for the charge. On this record, the charge of disorderly conduct within the petition was established by a preponderance of the evidence and should have been sustained (see Penal Law § 240.20 [1], [3] …). Matter of Linda UU. v Dana VV., 2023 NY Slip Op 00013, Third Dept 1-5-22

Practice Point: In order for conduct to amount to disorderly conduct it must have a “public” as opposed to an “individual” dimension. This case shows the distinction can be difficult to discern.

 

,

THE POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THE DEFENDANT’S DAUGHTER, WHO DID NOT TESTIFY AT THE TRIAL, DESCRIBED THE ALLEGED STABBING WAS INADMISSBILE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s assault conviction, over a dissent, determined the police officer’s (Costello’s) testimony about the defendant’s daughter’s explanation of the alleged stabbing, which included a reinactment, was testimonial hearsay and should not have been admitted. The defendant’s daughter did not testify at the trial. In addition, the defendant’s son’s statement to the defendant at the scene (Why, why, why? Why did you stab my mom?”) should not have been admitted as an excited utterance because the son did not witness the alleged stabbing:

“Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution” … . To determine which of these categories an out-of-court statement falls into, a court should focus on “the purpose that the statement was intended to serve” … , and to ascertain “the ‘primary purpose’ of an interrogation,” a court should “objectively evaluate the circumstances in which the encounter occurs and the statements and actions of the parties” … .

… [T]he daughter’s statements to Costello regarding the circumstances under which the defendant had stabbed the victim were testimonial in nature. Viewing the record objectively, at the time the statements were made, there was no ongoing emergency. The victim had been removed from the scene and taken to a hospital. The defendant had been taken into custody and transported to a police station. Indeed, Costello testified that a detective was never even assigned to the case, precisely because the police already “had the alleged perpetrator in custody.” Although the daughter was still deeply upset as a result of the stabbing, she was not in need of police assistance, and it is clear that Costello’s questions were not asked for the purpose of facilitating such assistance. Rather, the primary purpose of Costello’s questioning of the daughter “was to investigate a possible crime” … . Costello “was not seeking to determine . . . what is happening, but rather what happened” … . Indeed, Costello expressly asked the daughter to “indicate to [him] what happened.” Moreover, Costello went beyond simply asking what happened and requested that the daughter describe and illustrate exactly how it happened using simple words and gestures. While the People argue that Costello requested the use of gestures merely to overcome a language barrier, the fact remains that he asked the daughter to convey information about past events. The daughter’s detailed account of those events, complete with a physical re-enactment of the crime, did “precisely what a witness does on direct examination,” and thus was “inherently testimonial” … . People v Vargas, 2022 NY Slip Op 07460, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: Here a police officer was allowed to testify about how defendant’s daughter described the alleged stabbing. The daughter did not testify at the trial. Because the officer was trying to ascertain what happened in the past (the defendant was already in custody), as opposed to “what is happening” during an emergency, what the daughter told the officer was testimonial hearsay which should not have been admitted. The decision includes a good explanation of the difference between testimonial and nontestimonial hearsay.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, THEY DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF THE INITIAL STOP OF THE DEFENDANT; THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the People did not present sufficient evidence at the suppression hearing and suppression of the seized evidence and statements should have been granted. Defendant was accused of a knifepoint robbery of a gas station and was identified in a showup procedure. At the suppression hearing, the People did not present any evidence of the initial stop of the defendant and therefore did not establish the legality of the police conduct:

“On a motion to suppress, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of police conduct in the first instance” … . “Where a police encounter is not justified in its inception, it cannot be validated by a subsequently acquired suspicion” … . Here, at the suppression hearing, the People failed to present any evidence establishing the basis for the police to have made the initial stop of the defendant. Thus, the People failed to carry their burden of establishing the legality of police conduct in the first instance, and all evidence recovered as a result of the unlawful stop must be suppressed … . People v Vazquez, 2022 NY Slip Op 07461, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: If, at the suppression hearing, the People do not present any evidence of the initial contact between the police and the defendant, they do not meet their burden to show the legality of the police conduct and suppression is required.

 

,

SUPPRESSION OF THE WEAPON WAS PROPERLY DENIED, BUT DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ADMITTING POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; ALTHOUGH THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE IS RARELY APPLIED TO UPHOLD A GUILTY PLEA WHERE SUPPRSSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, HERE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINED THE PLEA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY SUPPRESSION OF THE STATEMENT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s guilty plea to possession of a weapon could not have been affected by the failure to suppress his statement admitting possession of the weapon. The Fourth Department determined the statement was a product of unwarned custodial interrogation:

‘The term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response’ ” … . “Although the police may ask a suspect preliminary questions at a crime scene in order to find out what is transpiring . . . , where criminal events have been concluded and the situation no longer requires clarification of the crime or its suspects, custodial questioning will constitute interrogation” … . Here, after defendant had been restrained and handcuffed, an officer asked defendant, “what’s going on? Are you all right? Are you okay?” Defendant responded, “you saw what I had on me. I was going to do what I had to do.” We conclude that the interaction between defendant and the officer “had traveled far beyond a ‘threshold crime scene inquiry’ ” and, under the circumstances, it was likely that the officer’s particular questions ” ‘would elicit evidence of a crime and, indeed, it did elicit an incriminating response’ ” … . …

“[W]hen a conviction is based on a plea of guilty an appellate court will rarely, if ever, be able to determine whether an erroneous denial of a motion to suppress contributed to the defendant’s decision, unless at the time of the plea he [or she] states or reveals his [or her] reason for pleading guilty” (People v Grant, 45 NY2d 366, 379-380 [1978]). “The Grant doctrine is not absolute, however, and [the Court of Appeals has] recognized that a guilty plea entered after an improper court ruling may be upheld if there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the plea’ ” … . People v Robles, 2022 NY Slip Op 07336, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: This case is rare exception to the rule that a guilty plea will not stand if a suppression motion should have been granted. Here the appellate division determined suppression of defendant’s statement admitting possession of the weapon would not have affected his decision to plead guilty because the weapon itself had not been suppressed. There was a dissent.

 

,

PHONE CALLS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON SUPPORTED CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SECOND DEGREE BUT NOT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined phone calls, as opposed to “contact with the protected person,” did not support the contempt first degree convictions. However the phone calls did support contempt second degree:

The … five counts of criminal contempt in the first degree … are based on evidence establishing that an order of protection had been issued against defendant for the benefit of a person and that on five occasions defendant made telephone calls from the Monroe County Jail to that person. … … With respect to those counts, the People were required to establish that defendant committed the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree … , and that he did so “by violating that part of a duly served order of protection . . . which requires the . . . defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued” … . Here, defendant was in jail when the calls at issue were made and the People failed to “prove[], beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had any contact with the protected person during the charged incident[s]” … . People v Caldwell, 2022 NY Slip Op 07325, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Here criminal contempt first degree required proof defendant failed to “stay away” from the protected person. That portion of the order was not violated by defendant’s phone calls to the protected person (which supported convictions for criminal contempt second degree).

 

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