You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

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.

 

, ,

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.

 

, ,

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.

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT EVEN IF DEFENDANT WAS ILLEGALLY FRISKED AND DETAINED OUTSIDE OF HIS VEHICLE, THE DEPUTY’S SEEING COCAINE ON THE DRIVER’S SEAT PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF THE VEHICLE; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE OBSERVATION OF THE DRUGS WAS A PRODUCT OF THE ILLEGAL FRISK AND DETENTION OF THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the motion to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle was properly denied. After observing what appeared to be a drug transaction the defective called for assistance. As one of the deputies approached defendant’s vehicle, defendant got out and walked toward the deputy. The deputy frisked the defendant, found nothing and told defendant to wait behind his vehicle. The deputy then walked to defendant’s vehicle where he saw a rolled up dollar bill and white powder on the driver’s seat. The dissent argued the deputy did not have reasonable suspicion of a crime when defendant was frisked and his observation of the drugs in the car was a product of the illegal detention of defendant:

The court properly determined that, based on the totality of the observations by the detective, which he communicated with the deputy … , the deputy had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in a drug transaction … . In any event, “the seizure of [the items inside the vehicle] was not the result of the allegedly illegal detention of defendant, who was outside the parked vehicle when the police officer approached and detained him” … . Even if the deputy had not detained defendant, he could have simply walked up to the vehicle, looked in the window, and observed the drugs in plain view on the driver’s seat. Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the deputy’s observations of the rolled-up dollar bill and white powdery substance provided probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of drugs … . People v Messano, 2023 NY Slip Op 00769, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant was frisked and detained as he walked toward the deputy from his car. The deputy then looked inside defendant’s car a saw drugs. The majority held that even if defendant was illegally detained outside the car, the deputy’s observation of the drugs justified the search. The two-justice dissent argued the observation of the drugs was the product of the illegal detention.

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO INVESTIGATE THE ROBBERY VICTIM’S STATEMENT THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT ONE OF THE PERPETRATORS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance counsel in that counsel did not investigate the robbery victim’s statement which indicated defendant was not one of the perpetrators:

… [T]he second victim’s hearing testimony that defendant was not present during the shooting is consistent with his initial statement to law enforcement, and it is also “wholly consistent with the theory pursued by [defense] counsel [at trial], namely that defendant was not present at the shooting and that the crime was instead committed by [different] individual[s]”… . Additionally, although the motion court chose to … discredit the second victim’s testimony, with respect to whether the second victim ever named for him the two individuals that the second victim believed carried out the attempted robbery, there is no evidence in the hearing record contrary to the second victim’s testimony that he would have named those individuals at trial had he been called … .

… [T]he hearing record discloses no tactical reason for defense counsel’s failure to interview the second victim … . Inasmuch as defendant established that defense counsel “did not fully investigate the case and did not collect the type of information that a lawyer would need in order to determine the best course of action” … , we conclude that defense counsel’s deficient conduct was “sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise [the] right to a fair trial” … . People v Everson, 2023 NY Slip Op 00761, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: Although defense counsel may have made an appropriate strategic decision re: whether to call the robbery victim as a witness, counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate the victim’s statement that defendant was not one of the perpetrators.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE FAILED TO INQUIRE FURTHER DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION WHEN DEFENDANT SAID HE DID NOT VIOLATE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION INTENTIONALLY; THERE IS NO NEED TO PRESERVE A DEFECTIVE-ALLOCUTION ERROR; CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of an aggravated family offense by guilty plea, determined the judge should have inquired further when defendant stated he did not intend to violate the order of protection when he sent a letter to the protected person. A defective allocution will be considered on appeal in the absence of preservation:

… [A]fter acknowledging his awareness of the valid and effective order of protection directing him to have no contact with the protected person, defendant stated that he “didn’t intentionally violate” the order of protection by sending the protected person a letter and instead asserted that any violation “was unintentional.” Following an off-the-record discussion between defendant and defense counsel, defendant admitted that sending the letter did, in fact, violate the order of protection, but the court did not inquire, and defendant never clarified, whether his conscious objective was to disobey the order of protection … . Contrary to the People’s assertion, which “conflates the culpable mental states for acts done ‘intentionally’ … and those done ‘knowingly’ … , this is not a case in which defendant’s “further statements removed any doubt regarding th[e requisite] intent” … . People v Vanwuyckhuyse, 2023 NY Slip Op 00754, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: The defendant said he did not intend to violate the order of protection during the plea allocution and the judge did not make the required inquiry. An allocution error need not be preserved for appeal by moving to withdraw the plea. The conviction was reversed.

 

, ,

HERE IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO PLACE THE DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, BEFORE THE JURY RETURNED TO ANNOUNCE THE VERDICT; AT THAT POINT THE DEFENDANT IS CONSIDERED INNOCENT AND RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT EXPLANATION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the defendant should not have been handcuffed when the jury returned to announce the verdict: At that point the defendant is considered innocent and the defendant may be prejudiced if the jury is polled. Here defense counsel expressly objected to the handcuffs on those grounds:

… [T]he reading of the verdict is an integral part of the guilt-determination phase. … “[A] verdict reported by the jury is not final unless properly recorded and accepted by the court” … . Indeed, in accordance with CPL 310.80, the trial court must order the jury to resume deliberations when polling elicits a negative answer from one or more jurors. As a consequence, until the jury returns to the courtroom, publicly announces the verdict and, if polled, confirms the verdict, there is no finding of guilt, defendant is still presumed innocent, and the constitutional prohibition on restraining a defendant without explanation remains in full force. People v Sanders, 2023 NY Slip Op 00692, CtApp 2-9-23

Practice Point: Restraining a defendant during the guilt-determination phase of the trial in unconstitutional unless adequately explained. A defendant is considered innocent until the verdict is announced and the jury is polled. In this case it was deemed reversible error to place the defendant in handcuffs, without explanation, over defense counsel’s objection, before the jury returned with the verdict.

 

 

,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE WAS MONITORING A WIRETAP WHEN DEFENDANT WAS OVERHEARD IN A CALL WHICH HAD ORIGINATED FROM THE COUNTY JAIL; LOCAL POLICE WERE ALERTED TO THE CONVERSATION AND THE POLICE OBTAINED THE RECORDING FROM THE JAIL; ALTHOUGH THE JAIL RECORDING WAS NOT AN “INTERCEPTED CONVERSATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPL 700.70, IT WAS EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM AN “INTERCEPTED CONVERSTION” TRIGGERING THE CPL 700.70 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the appellate division, determined the failure to provide defendant with notice of a recorded phone conversation was improper. The Attorney General’s office was monitoring a wiretap in an unrelated case when defendant was overheard in a call originating from the county jail talking about a fatal hit-and-run accident. Local police were informed of the defendant’s conversation and they obtained a recording of it made by the county jail. The jail recording, which was introduced at trial, was not an “intercepted conversation” within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law 700.70. But the conversation overheard pursuant to the wiretap which alerted the police to the jail conversation was an “intercepted conversation” which triggered the CPL 700.70 notice:

The People produced the recording … to defendant in discovery but did not furnish defendant with a copy of the wiretap warrant and underlying application within the fifteen-day period prescribed by CPL 700.70. Several months after defendant was arraigned, the People informed defendant by letter that the police were “alerted” to the call by the wiretap. Defendant moved to preclude the call from evidence on the grounds that the People failed to adhere to the CPL 700.70 notice procedure. * * *

The substance of the wiretap recording informed law enforcement that the same conversation had been recorded by [jail], leading the Syracuse Police directly to the recording that the People used as evidence at defendant’s trial. In listening to the wiretap, a detective heard incriminating statements about the hit-and-run, identified defendant as the declarant, and directed authorities to the [jail] recording. Clearly, the [jail] call is evidence derived from the wiretap. … [I]t is not certain that police investigating the hit-and-run would otherwise have discovered the call—indeed, the inmate who placed the call had no apparent connection to the hit-and-run incident. Because the wiretap was an “intercepted communication,” the People’s failure to timely furnish defendant with a copy of the eavesdropping warrant and underlying application precluded the admission of the wiretap recording and any evidence derived therefrom—namely, the jail recording—into evidence at trial … . People v Myers, 2023 NY Slip Op 00691, CtApp 2-9-23

Practice Point: Recorded jail conversations are not considered “intercepted conversations” triggering the notice requirements of CPL 700.70. But here the police were alerted to the jail conversation by monitoring a wiretap in an unrelated case. Therefore the jail’s recording of the conversation was evidence derived from an “intercepted conversation” triggering the CPL 700.70 notice requirements.

 

,

THE ADMISSION OF AN UNNOTICED STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE HAD DISCLOSED THE INTERVIEW IN WHICH THE STATEMENT WAS MADE, THEY DID NOT DISCLOSE THE SPECIFIC STATEMENT; THE DEFENDANT MOVED TO PRECLUDE THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the evidence defendant knew the codefendant was armed and shared the codefendant’s intent to cause serious injury was legally insufficient. Although the robbery second conviction was based on legally sufficient evidence, an unnoticed statement was allowed in evidence at trial, a reversible error:

… [D]efendant is entitled to a new trial on the second-degree robbery count. The People should not have been permitted to submit evidence of defendant’s August 9, 2016 statement to a detective regarding defendant’s discussion with the victim about the value of the latter’s jewelry because this statement was not properly noticed pursuant to CPL 710.30(1)(a). Although the People disclosed the interview generally, they did not disclose this particular statement … . At a suppression hearing, defendant only moved to suppress other statements not at issue on appeal, and the statement at issue was first revealed during trial testimony, at which time defendant moved for preclusion on the ground of lack of notice. People v Weathers, 2023 NY Slip Op 00741, First Dept 2-9-23

Practice Point: If the People attempt to introduce a statement made by the defendant which was not provided in the CPL 710.30 notice, and no motion to suppress the statement had been made, introduction of the statement at trial must be precluded. In this case, it was not enough that the People disclosed the interview from which the statement was taken. No notice of the specific statement had been provided.

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR “BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD” BY PRESENTING SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE LEGALITY OF POLICE CONDUCT AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED DEFENDANT WERE MADE AWARE OF THE CO-DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ARREST; THE FACT THAT GAPS IN THE PEOPLE’S PROOF MAY HAVE BEEN FILLED IN BY THE DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING DIDN’T CURE THE DEFICIENCY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and suppressing his postarrest statement, determined the People did not meet their “burden of coming forward” with proof of the legality of police conduct. The fact that some of the gaps in the proof might have been filled by the defendant’s testimony at the suppression hearing did not cure the defect:

The People failed to submit evidence sufficient to support the suppression court’s findings, thus failing to meet their burden of coming forward … . Although the officers who arrested defendant were not required to testify, the People’s initial evidentiary presentation, consisting of the testimony of the investigating detective, was insufficient to permit the inference that information constituting probable cause was transmitted by the detective to the officers effectuating the arrest of defendant, as required to meet the People’s prima facie burden of establishing the legality of the challenged police conduct and shift the burden of persuasion to defendant … . Although defendant testified after the People rested, we need not consider whether defendant’s testimony before the suppression court could have been used to remedy deficiencies in the People’s presentation. As the People repeatedly informed the court, they relied solely on the detective’s testimony to meet their burden. Further, the suppression court discredited defendant’s testimony as “unworthy of belief” and based its decision to deny defendant’s motion to suppress solely on the testimony of the detective, which it credited. People v Watkins, 2023 NY Slip Op 00742, First Dept 2-9-23

Practice Point: The People have a burden of proof at a suppression hearing called the “burden of going forward.” To meet the burden the People was demonstrate the legality of the police conduct. Here there was no evidence the officers who arrested the defendant were aware of the statement by the codefendant which was the basis for the arrest. Therefore defendant’s postarrest statement should have been suppressed.

 

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