You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY OR GIVEN THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THIS ISSUE FALLS WITHIN AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the defendant made statements during the plea allocution which negated elements of criminal possession of a weapon. At that point, the sentencing judge should have made an inquiry. This issue falls within an exception to the preservation requirement:

Penal Law § 265.03 (3) requires the possession of a “loaded firearm,” meaning “an operable gun with either live ammunition in the gun or held on [the defendant’s] person” with the gun … . … [D]efendant negated that element at sentencing when he stated that the handgun in question was in his bedstand drawer, not on his person, and that it “wasn’t loaded.” At that point, it was incumbent upon County Court to either “conduct a further inquiry or give . . . defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … . People v Reese, 2022 NY Slip Op 04194, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: When a defendant makes statements during the plea allocution which negate an element of the charged offense, the judge must make an inquiry or give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea. The error need not be preserved for appeal.

 

,

HERE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) AFTER HE HAD BEEN INDICTED; THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS INVALID AND THE SCI WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR IS JURISDICTIONAL AND NEED NOT BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s judgment by guilty plea and dismissed the superior court information (SCI). A defendant cannot be prosecuted by an SCI after indictment (defendant here had already been indicted). The error is jurisdictional and need not be preserved by objection. The issue is not forfeited by a guilty plea:

As the Court of Appeals has observed, “[g]iven the objective and the plain language of CPL 195.10 (2) (b), the conclusion is inescapable that waiver cannot be accomplished after indictment . . ., even where it is the defendant who orchestrates the scenario” … .

Here, at the point in time when defendant agreed to be prosecuted by way of an SCI, defendant already had been indicted and the matter was scheduled for trial. Although the indictment subsequently was dismissed, there is no indication in the record that the dismissal was occasioned by a defect in the indictment itself (see CPL 210.20) or that Supreme Court authorized resubmission of the charge to the grand jury (see CPL 210.45 [9]), and it does not appear that a new felony complaint was filed. “Therefore, defendant was not placed on a formal preindictment procedural track” … . Under these circumstances, the waiver of indictment is invalid and the resulting SCI must be dismissed … . People v Michalski, 2022 NY Slip Op 04190, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant was already indicted when he waived indictment and pled guilty to a superior court information (SCI). That was a jurisdictional error which need not be preserved by objection.

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT DISMISSED THE PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND COUNT; THE PEOPLE APPEALED; COUNTY COURT THEN STAYED ITS DISMISSAL, HELD A TRIAL, AND DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED; AFTER THE CONVICTION THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AS MOOT; THE DEFENDANT APPEALED; THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO STAY THE DISMISSAL AND GO TO TRIAL ON THAT COUNT; THE CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s promoting-prison-contraband conviction, determined the trial judge, who had initially dismissed the promoting-prison-contraband count, should not have subsequently stayed the dismissal and gone to trial on the promoting-prison-contraband count with the other charges. Apparently the judge stayed the dismissal of the charge because the People had appealed the dismissal. After the trial, the People’s appeal was dismissed as moot. Then the defendant appealed and argued the judge did not have the statutory authority to stay the dismissal and go to trial on the dismissed count:

We agree with defendant that County Court improperly stayed its dismissal order. The People had appealed to this Court pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1). In pertinent part, that provision authorizes the People to appeal, as of right, from an order that dismissed an accusatory instrument or a count thereof pursuant to CPL 210.20. Except as provided for in CPL 460.40, the taking of an appeal from a judgment, sentence or order does not automatically stay the execution thereof. With respect to appeals by the People to an intermediate appellate court, an automatic stay results only in the case of an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1-a) “from an order reducing a count or counts of an indictment or dismissing an indictment and directing the filing of a prosecutor’s information” or an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1) “from an order dismissing a count or counts of an indictment charging murder in the first degree” (CPL 460.40 [2]). Plainly, none of those circumstances are present. * * *

… [T]here was no statutory authorization for a stay of County Court’s dismissal order. Without a stay, the bench trial should not have included the charge of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, and, thus, there should have been no occasion for defendant to be convicted of the lesser included offense of promoting prison contraband in the second degree. Accordingly, we vacate that conviction. People v Felli, 2022 NY Slip Op 04192, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: With certain exceptions in CPL 460.40, the dismissal of a count cannot be stayed when the People appeal the dismissal. Here the judge dismissed a count, the People appealed, the judge then stayed the dismissal, held a trial, defendant was convicted of the count, and the People’s appeal was dismissed as moot. Because the judge had no authority pursuant to CPL 460.40 to stay the dismissal and go to trial on the dismissed count, the conviction was vacated.

 

, ,

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING MET THE DEFINITION OF “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” SUCH THAT FAMILY COURT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the family-offense petition should not have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Second Department determined the respondent met the “intimate relationship” criteria which provided Family Court with subject matter jurisdiction:

“[T]he determination as to whether persons are or have been in an ‘intimate relationship’ within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is a fact-specific determination which may require a hearing” … . Although Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) expressly excludes a “casual acquaintance” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts” from the definition of “intimate relationship,” “the legislature left it to the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis what qualifies as an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) based upon consideration of factors such as ‘the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship'” …. .

… [T]he record demonstrated that the petitioner knew the respondent for more than 20 years, and the respondent and the petitioner’s sister held themselves out as husband and wife. During that period of time, the petitioner and the respondent engaged in general social activities at each other’s homes, attended holiday and birthday celebrations together, and traveled together. The petitioner’s sister and the respondent had a daughter together who identified the petitioner as her aunt. The petitioner resided in one of the units of a three-family home. The petitioner’s sister, the respondent, and their daughter, who was approximately 18 years old at the time of the hearing, resided in one of the other units of that three-family home. The home was owned by the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner’s sister. Under the circumstances, the Family Court should have denied the respondent’s application to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (see Family Ct Act § 812[1]). Matter of Charter v Allen, 2022 NY Slip Op 04167, Second Dept 6-29-22

Practice Point: This case demonstrates that an “intimate relationship” which gives Family Court subject matter jurisdiction in a family offense proceeding need not be a sexual relationship.

 

,

THE 20-YEAR DURATION OF REGISTRATION AND VERIFICATION OF A LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER STARTS ANEW WHEN THE OFFENDER, ALREADY REGISTERED IN ANOTHER STATE, MOVES TO NEW YORK AND NOTIFIES THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, in a matter of first impression, determined that the 20-year duration of registration and verification of a level one sex offender starts anew when a sex offender registered in another state moves to New York:

The defendant contends that the 20-year period set forth in Correction Law § 168-h(1) must be diminished by the period of time that he was registered as a sex offender in another state. We disagree and hold that the “initial date of registration” referred to in that statutory provision means the initial date of the offender’s registration with the Division of Criminal Justice Services pursuant to New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA). People v Corr, 2022 NY Slip Op 04183, Second Dept 6-29-22

Practice Point: A level one sex offender who was registered in another state before moving to New York does not get credit for the duration of the out-of-state registration.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY TERMINATED DEFENDANT’S SELF-REPRESENTATION DURING THE TRIAL BASED ON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY DECLINED TO EXCUSE A JUROR WHO, DURING DELIBERATIONS, SAID HE DID NOT WANT TO CONTINUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT EXCLUDED FROM A MATIERAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE DISCUSSED HIS MENTAL CONDITION WITH COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined defendant, who was representing himself at the time, was not deprived of his right to be present at a material stage of the proceeding when the judge, outside defendant’s presence, discussed whether defendant, who apparently was in an agitated state, should be examined by a psychiatrist. Ultimately no examination was ordered. The First Department held the trial judge properly terminated defendant’s self-representation based on his behavior during the trial. In addition, the First Department concluded that a juror who apparently stated he did not wish to continue participating in the deliberations, was not grossly unqualified:

… [T]he record supports a determination that defendant’s conduct prevented the fair and orderly exposition of the issues and was disruptive to the proceedings … . During the examination of the People’s witnesses, defendant was repeatedly told by the court to “calm down,” to not get agitated, to not argue and be combative with the witnesses, and to not argue with the court regarding its rulings. The record also reflects instances where the court explained its rulings to defendant, defendant stated he understood and would then immediately engage in the same conduct. Moreover, during his testimony, the court repeatedly admonished defendant to stop making arguments to the jury. When asked twice by the court to sit down, he refused to do so. Defendant also repeatedly ignored the direction of the court officer to sit down. Instead, defendant remained standing, continued his argument and questioned the court’s ruling. Defendant also made reference to his over one-year period of pretrial detention as well as that he had a teenage son. People v Williams, 2022 NY Slip Op 04135, First Dept 6-28-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s agitated behavior during the trial was a proper ground for terminating his self-representation. The judge’s discussion with counsel, outside defendant’s presence, of defendant’s mental health was not a material stage of the proceedings. The judge properly refused to exclude a juror who, during deliberations, said he did not want to continue.

 

,

THE PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; THE VICTIM WAS FIXATED ON THE UNIQUE WHITE AND BLACK PATTERN ON THE SHIRT WORN BY THE ROBBER; IN THE PHOTO ARRAY A SHIRT WITH A BLACK AND WHITE DESIGN WAS VISIBLE IN THE DEFENDANT’S PHOTO, BUT THE FILLERS WERE ALL WEARING SOLID COLOR SHIRTS (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the photo array from which the victim identified defendant was unduly suggestive:

The hearing court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress the victim’s identification of defendant in a photo array. The photo array was unduly suggestive because defendant was the only person shown wearing “distinctive clothing . . .which fit the description” of the suspect … . Moreover, the distinctive clothing was an outstanding feature of the identifying witness’s description of the robber …  The victim told the police that he “fixated” on the “unusual shirt” the r0bber was wearing during the incident, a white shirt with a distinctive black design. In the photo array, the visible part of defendant’s shirt closely matched the robber’s shirt as described by the victim. The fillers, on the other hand, all wore shirts that, to the extent visible in the photos, were solid-colored shirts without any markings or designs. People v Sulayman, 2022 NY Slip Op 04132, First Dept 6-28-22

Practice Point: Here the victim told the police the robber wore an “unusual shirt” with a black and white pattern. In the photo array from which the victim identified the defendant, the defendant was the only one with a black-and-white patterned shirt. All the fillers had solid color shirts. The array was deemed unduly suggestive and a new trial was ordered.

 

,

BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY OBJECTION, THE MAJORITY DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER COUNTY COURT MADE A PROPER INQUIRY OF A JUROR WHO, DURING DELIBERATIONS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, REVEALED SHE WAS A RAPE VICTIM; DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH RAPE; THE DISSENTING JUDGE WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department refused to consider whether County Court properly handled an “outburst by a juror during deliberations” because the issue was not preserved by objection. The dissenting justice would have considered the issue in the interest of justice and ordered a new trial:

From the dissent:

The foreperson said it best — “how did you get this far if that’s the case? . . . you shouldn’t be here.” The foreperson said this to one of the jurors, who was in seat No. 6, after this juror revealed during deliberations that she was a victim of rape — one of the crimes for which defendant was being tried. Juror No. 6 had not disclosed this fact during voir dire or on the juror questionnaire. In any event, County Court proceeded to question each juror, including juror No. 6, to determine if any of them was grossly unqualified. Such inquiry, however, was not “probing and tactful” … and, consequently, the court failed to ensure that the finding of guilt was the product of a fair and impartial jury. * * *

In my view, County Court’s inquiry did not meet the probing and tactful standard. Based on the allegations of rape made against defendant, juror No. 6’s revelation of being a rape victim and the doubt expressed by the foreperson about juror No. 6’s impartiality, it was incumbent upon the court, at the very least, to ask juror No. 6 about being a rape victim. Indeed, the court intended on asking juror No. 6 about being a sexual assault victim but, for some reason that is not apparent in the record, it never did. Merely asking whether juror No. 6 was a crime victim did not address the emotionally charged situation that the foreperson brought to the court’s attention. The court’s inquiry was therefore flawed from the outset. People v Rivera, 2022 NY Slip Op 04050, Third Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Because the issue was not preserved for appeal by objection, the majority refused to consider whether County Court made a proper inquiry when a juror revealed during deliberations, for the first time, she was a rape victim. Defendant was charged with rape. The dissenting justice would have considered the issue in the interest of justice and ordered a new trial.

 

,

THE MAJORITY REFUSED TO CONSIDER WHETHER COUNTY COURT PROPERLY DISCHARGED A JUROR WHO FAILED TO APPEAR BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY OBJECTION; TWO DISSENTERS WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department refused to consider whether the court properly discharged a juror because the issue was not preserved by objection. The two dissenting justices would have ordered a new trial in the interest of justice:

From the dissent:

If a juror is unable to continue serving due to an illness, “the court shall make a reasonably thorough inquiry concerning such illness . . . and shall attempt to ascertain when such juror will be appearing in court” (CPL 270.35 [2] [a]). * * *

… [O]n the day at issue and approximately 30 minutes after the scheduled start of the trial, County Court noted that juror No. 1 was not present. The court remarked, “She did leave sick yesterday,” and, after such remark, stated that it was necessary to replace juror No. 1 with an alternate juror. …

… [T]here was no reasonably thorough inquiry — let alone, any inquiry — as to juror No. 1’s absence. Although juror No. 1 was apparently ill on the day when she was selected for service, the court did not bother to learn if she continued to be ill. It seems that the court merely speculated that, because juror No. 1 was ill the day before, she continued to be ill and that was the reason why she did not show up at the scheduled time for the start of the trial. Such speculation, however, does not meet the standard of conducting a reasonably thorough inquiry. … [E]ven if it could be said that the court did make a reasonably thorough inquiry, the court still failed to ascertain when juror No. 1 would return to court. The record discloses that, prior to discharging juror No. 1, the court neither heard from nor reached out to her to see if she would not be making it for the trial or if she was en route to the courthouse … . People v Colter, 2022 NY Slip Op 04055, Third Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Here the issue whether County Court properly discharged a juror was not considered by the majority because the issue was not preserved by objection. The two dissenters argued the court did not conduct a proper inquiry to determine why the juror had not appeared and whether the juror would appear. The dissenters would have considered the issue in the interest of justice and ordered a new trial.

 

,

AFTER TRIGGERING A SECURITY ALARM AT A SPORTING GOODS STORE, DEFENDANT WAS DETAINED IN THE STORE FOR HALF AN HOUR IN THE PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS WHOSE QUESTIONS WERE NOT CONFINED TO THE PETIT LARCENY INVESTIGATION RE: AMMUNITION, BUT RATHER RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF FIREARMS; DEFENDANT’S UNWARNED STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the questioning by the police when defendant was still in a sporting goods store where he allegedly attempted to steal ammunition constituted custodial interrogation in the absence of the Miranda warnings. The statements made by the defendant at the sporting goods store should have been suppressed:

The entire interaction at the sporting goods store was captured by the various body cameras worn by the police involved. Viewing same, it is evident that, throughout most of the interaction, four police officers were present at the sporting goods store, with at least one officer positioned between defendant and the exit. More importantly, shortly after the police arrived, defendant had been told to empty his pockets and place all of his personal property on the counter. Defendant did so. While being detained by the police, defendant asked the police multiple times if he could retrieve his possessions. The police denied each of these requests. … Additionally, the questions posed by the police to defendant exceeded that necessary for investigation. Many of their inquiries were not limited to the petit larceny, the allegation in question, but instead focused on firearms that defendant may have possessed, their location, caliber and defendant’s intent as to his usage of same. With the benefit of viewing the interaction between the police and defendant, and considering all the circumstances involved, we cannot say that a reasonable person would have felt free to leave … . People v Abdullah, 2022 NY Slip Op 04045, Third Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Defendant triggered a security alarm in a sporting goods store when he attempted to steal ammunition. He was detained by police in the store for half an hour and was asked questions about his possession of firearms. Because the questions exceeded the scope of the petit larceny investigation and were not preceded by the Miranda warnings, defendant’s statements should have been suppressed. His conviction was reversed.

 

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