You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE ATTACKERS’ INTENT TO ROB THE VICTIM; DEFENDANT’S ROBBERY CONVICTIONS UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE-LIABILITY THEORY REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s robbery convictions, determined the evidence defendant shared the attackers’ intent to rob the victim was legally insufficient. Defendant had set up a drug purchase from the victim. When the victim arrived, he was attacked and robbed by four masked men. Although the victim testified defendant was one of the masked men, there was strong evidence to the contrary:

The People … did not have any direct evidence demonstrating that defendant knew of or shared an intent to forcibly steal property from the victim … . Indeed, there was no evidence that defendant had prior knowledge of a plan to rob the victim … . People v Smith, 2022 NY Slip Op 03547, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Although the defendant sent the victim to the address where the victim was to sell marijuana to a buyer, there was no evidence defendant was aware the buyer intended to attack and rob the victim. Therefore, there was no evidence defendant shared the robbers’ intent and his robbery convictions under an accomplice-liability theory were reversed.

 

, ,

THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED TO STOP DELIBERATIONS IF IT FOUND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED TO THE TOP COUNT (MURDER); DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s manslaughter conviction in the interest of justice, determined the jury instruction on the justification defense was flawed. The instruction did not explain that if the justification defense was the basis for acquittal on the top count (murder here) the jury must not consider the lesser counts:

… Supreme Court inadequately charged the jury regarding his justification defense. Although this issue is unpreserved inasmuch as defendant failed to raise it during the charge conference and did not object to the final charge … , we nevertheless find it appropriate to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to take corrective action and reverse defendant’s conviction … .

Where … a defendant raises a claim of self-defense, the trial court commits reversible error if it fails to “instruct the jury that, if it finds the defendant not guilty of a greater charge on the basis of justification, it is not to consider any lesser counts” … . This error was compounded by the verdict sheet, which directed the jury to consider manslaughter in the first degree if the jury found defendant not guilty of murder in the second degree; the verdict sheet did not contain a qualifier if the acquittal of murder was based on the defense of justification … . Even though … “the jury may have acquitted on the top charge[] without relying on defendant’s justification defense, it is nevertheless impossible to discern whether acquittal of the top count[] was based on the jury’s finding of justification so as to mandate acquittal on the lesser count[] to which justification also applied” … .People v Harris, 2022 NY Slip Op 03548, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: If the justification defense is to be considered by the jury, the jury must be instructed to stop any further deliberations (re: the lesser counts) if the justification defense is deemed to apply to the top count. Here the issue was not preserved by an objection to the jury instruction, but the Third Department reversed in the interest of justice.

 

,

THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT SEPARATELY PRONOUNCE A SENTENCE FOR EACH CONVICTION; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for resentencing, noted the sentencing judge did not pronounce sentence separately for the two counts:

… [W]e are …  obliged to remit for resentencing. The sentencing transcript reflects that County Court imposed a single sentence upon defendant and “failed to pronounce sentence separately on each of the two counts [of] which [she was convicted], as required by CPL 380.20” … . As a result, the matter must be remitted so that County Court can pronounce sentence on each count … . People v Robbins, 2022 NY Slip Op 03549, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: A sentencing judge must pronounce a sentence separately for each conviction.

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO QUASH SUPBOENAS ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (OAG) TO THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION IN THE OAG’S FRAUD INVESTIGATION; THE FACT THAT THERE IS A RELATED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE CIVIL DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in this civil investigation by the Office of Attorney General (OAG) into whether the respondent Trump Organization committed fraud in their financial practices and disclosure, Supreme Court properly refused to quash the OAG’s subpoenas seeking depositions and documents. The fact that there is also a criminal investigation does preclude civil discovery:

The existence of a criminal investigation does not preclude civil discovery of related facts, at which a party may exercise the privilege against self-incrimination … .. Individuals have no constitutional or statutory right to be called to testify before a grand jury under circumstances that would give them immunity from prosecution for any matter about which they testify; although subjects of a grand jury proceeding have a statutory right to appear and testify, this right is conditioned upon the witness waiving the right to immunity and giving up the privilege against self-incrimination (CPL 190.50[5] …). The political campaign and other public statements made by OAG about appellants do not support the claim that OAG initiated, or is using, the subpoenas in this civil investigation to obtain testimony solely for use in a criminal proceeding or in a manner that would otherwise improperly undermine appellants’ privilege against self-incrimination … . Neither does the record suggest that, in the absence of a civil investigation, OAG would be likely to grant immunity to appellants — the primary subjects of the criminal investigation — to secure their grand jury testimony. Thus, the subpoenas did not frustrate any right to testify with immunity. Matter of People of the State of New York v Trump Org., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03456, First Dept 5-26-22

Practice Point: This case stems from the Office of Attorney General’s (OAG’s) fraud investigation of the Trump Organization. Supreme Court properly refused to quash the OAG’s subpoenas. The fact that there is a related criminal investigation does not preclude civil discovery. There was no showing the appellants’ privilege against self-incrimination was being undermined by the subpoenas seeking depositions and documents.

 

,

THE SEX OFFENDER LEVEL ADJUDICATION IN NEW YORK COUNTY REQUIRED THE DISMISSAL OF THE SORA PROCEEDING IN BRONX COUNTY WHICH WAS BASED ON THE SAME CONDUCT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Bronx County SORA proceeding should have been dismissed because New York County had entered a sex offender level adjudication based on the defendant’s conduct in both counties:

… [T]he proceeding in Bronx County should have been dismissed on defendant’s motion where Supreme Court, New York County had entered a sex offender level adjudication based on defendant’s criminal conduct in both counties, which constituted the “current offenses” under the risk assessment instrument … . People v Cisneros, 2022 NY Slip Op 03454, First Dept 5-26-22

Practice Point: The same conduct in two counties will not support more than one SORA sex offender level adjudication.

 

PRESUMABLY THE ROBBERY AND GRAND LARCENY CHARGES STEMMED FROM THE THEFT OF THE TAXI CAB (THE FACTS ARE NOT EXPLAINED); THE ACQUITTAL OF UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE RENDERED THE ROBBERY AND GRAND LARCENY CONVICTIONS REPUGNANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department vacated defendant’s robbery second and grand larceny fourth convictions as repugnant to the acquittal of unauthorized use of a vehicle third:

The defendant was charged with various crimes arising from an incident during which the defendant, a codefendant, and a third perpetrator who was never apprehended, robbed the complainant, a cab driver, at knife point. The jury convicted the defendant of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[3]), robbery in the second degree (id. § 160.10[3]), grand larceny in the fourth degree (id. § 155.30[8]), and menacing in the second degree (id. § 120.14[1]), and acquitted him of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (id. § 165.05[1]).

“A verdict is repugnant when, evaluated only in terms of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury—and without regard to the evidence as to what actually occurred—acquittal on one count necessarily negates an . . . element of a crime of which the defendant was convicted” … .. Here, as the crimes were charged to the jury, the acquittal on the charge of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree rendered repugnant the convictions of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree … . People v Rodriguez, 2022 NY Slip Op 03403, Second Dept 5-25-22

Practice Point: A rare example of a repugnant verdict requiring vacation of the convictions. The facts are not explained. The Second Department determined the acquittal of unauthorized use of a vehicle rendered the robbery and grand larceny convictions repugnant. Presumably the charges stemmed from the theft of the vehicle.

 

,

THE STOP OF THE TAXI IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO ALL OFFENSES BASED UPON A PROMISE OF CONCURRENT SENTENCES, ALL CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions by guilty pleas, determined the police officer who stopped the taxi in which defendant was a passenger did not have probable cause to believe defendant had committed a crime. Because defendant pled guilty to several offenses based upon a promise of concurrent sentences, all convictions were reversed:

Upon our evaluation of the totality of the circumstances in this case, we conclude that, at the time the police officer stopped the taxi in which the defendant was a passenger, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant had committed a crime. The stop was based merely on the report of an identified citizen, made 40 minutes after the fight had occurred, that the neighbor with whom she was talking to on the phone was presently observing the defendant getting into a black taxi on the block where the fight occurred. There was no evidence that the informant or the neighbor saw the fight, and the neighbor, who testified at the hearing, did not state that she knew that the defendant was involved in the fight. Indeed, the police officer who stopped the taxi admitted that, when he made the stop, he did not know whether the defendant was a victim, a perpetrator, or involved “in anything.” Under these circumstances, the gun recovered by that officer upon the vehicle stop should have been suppressed … . …

The defendant correctly contends that the judgments relating to the drug cases also must be reversed inasmuch as his pleas of guilty in those cases were premised on the promise of sentences that would run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the weapon possession charge … . People v Gomez, 2022 NY Slip Op 03399, Second Dept 5-25-22

Practice Point: One of the charges to which defendant pled guilty was overturned because the police did not have probable cause to make a vehicle stop. The guilty pleas to all the charges were reversed because of the promise the sentences would run concurrently with the sentence for the overturned conviction.

 

,

THE BURGLARY COUNT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT ALLEGED DEFENDANT WAS ARMED WITH A “KNIFE” WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A “DEADLY WEAPON;” THE ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE COUNT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED; THE SANDOVAL RULING WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department dismissed a jurisdictionally defective count of the indictment, held the People’s attempt to amend that count was not authorized, held that certain Sandoval evidence should not have been admitted, but deemed the Sandoval error harmless and upheld defendant’s convictions on the other counts:

… [C]ount 1 of the indictment alleged that “in the course of effecting entry into said dwelling,” the defendant “was armed with a dangerous weapon, to wit: a knife.” Inasmuch as the offense of burglary in the first degree requires that the defendant be armed with a “deadly weapon,” a term which is specifically defined in Penal Law § 10.00(12) and which definition includes only certain specified knives, count 1 of the indictment was jurisdictionally defective because it failed to effectively charge the defendant with the commission of a crime (see id. §§ 10.00, 140.30[1]).

… CPL 200.70(2)(a) prohibits any amendment of an indictment when the amendment is needed to cure “[a] failure thereof to charge or state an offense” … .

… Although “questioning concerning other crimes is not automatically precluded simply because the crimes to be inquired about are similar to the crimes charged” … , “‘cross-examination with respect to crimes or conduct similar to that of which the defendant is presently charged may be highly prejudicial, in view of the risk, despite the most clear and forceful limiting instructions to the contrary, that the evidence will be taken as some proof of the commission of the crime charged rather than be reserved solely to the issue of credibility'” … . People v Bloome, 2022 NY Slip Op 03398, Second Dept 5-25-22

Practice Point: Only certain knives meet the definition of “deadly weapon” as used in the burglary first statute. Therefore the count which alleged defendant was armed with a knife did not allege burglary first and was therefore jurisdictionally defective. A count which does not state an offense cannot be amended pursuant to CPL 200.70. The Sandoval ruling, which allowed defendant to be cross-examined about crimes similar to those with which he was charged, was (harmless) error.

 

,

EXCLUDING EVIDENCE WHICH CONTRADICTED AN IMPORTANT PROSECUTION-WITNESS’S ACCOUNT OF HIS ACTIONS RIGHT UP UNTIL THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING, AND THREE 911 CALLS WHICH QUALIFIED AS PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSIONS, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the Appellate Division in this murder case, determined evidentiary rulings excluding evidence which impeached an important witness and 911 calls admissible as present sense impressions deprived defendant of his right to present a defense. R.M. was a crucial prosecution witness. R.M. claimed to have been with his girlfriend, R.J. right up until the time of the shooting. But R.J. would have testified she was not with R.M. that day:

R.J.’s proffered testimony was probative of R.M.’s ability to observe and recall details of the shooting. At trial, R.M. testified that he was with R.J. until “seconds” before he witnessed the shooting, and that he was at the scene to walk R.J. home. Upon the People’s questioning, R.M. explained in detail his relationship with R.J., resulting in many pages of testimony as to where he met up with her that evening, the amount of time they spent together, and when they parted ways. This testimony, introduced and relied upon by the People, made R.J. an integral part of R.M.’s account of why he was in a position to witness the shooting, and placed her with him mere seconds before it occurred. Since the People’s own theory of the case placed R.J. on the scene the instant before the shooting, her testimony cannot be characterized as collateral. …

The court also erred in excluding the three 911 calls. The calls were admissible as present sense impressions. The present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule applies to statements that are “(1) made by a person perceiving the event as it is unfolding or immediately afterward” and “(2) corroborated by independent evidence establishing the reliability of the contents of the statement” … . “[D]escriptions of events made by a person who is perceiving the event as it is unfolding” are “deemed reliable . . . because the contemporaneity of the communication minimizes the opportunity for calculated misstatement as well as the risk of inaccuracy from faulty memory” … . People v Deverow, 2022 NY Slip Op 03362, CtApp 5-24-22

Practice Point: Here an important prosecution witness claimed he was with his girlfriend right up until seconds before the shooting he allegedly witnessed. The girlfriend’s testimony that she was not with the witness that day should not have been excluded as collateral. In addition, three 911 calls which qualified as present sense impressions should not have been excluded. The Court of Appeals held these evidentiary errors deprived defendant of his right to put on a defense.

 

,

THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH “FRAUDULENT ACCOSTING” WAS FACIALLY SUFFICIENT; IT WAS ENOUGH TO ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT SPOKE FIRST TO PERSONS PASSING AROUND HIM ON THE SIDEWALK ASKING FOR DONATIONS FOR THE HOMELESS; THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE DEFENDANT WAS AGGRESSIVE OR PERSISTENT OR TARGETED AN INDIVIDUAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined the accusatory instrument charging defendant with “fraudulent accosting” was facially sufficient. Defendant set up a couple of milk crates as a table in the sidewalk and asked people for donations to the homeless as they walked around the table. Defendant unsuccessfully argued the term “accost” required an element of aggressiveness or persistence directed toward an individual:

A person is guilty of fraudulent accosting when he or she “accosts a person in a public space with intent to defraud him of money or other property by means of a trick, swindle or confidence game” (Penal Law § 165.30 [1]). * * *

During the relevant period in 1952, when the legislature created the offense of fraudulent accosting … contemporary dictionaries defined “accost” to mean either to “approach,” to “speak to first,” or to “address” … .No dictionary cited from the relevant time period limits the term to an aggressive or persistent physical approach … . People v Mitchell, 2022 NY Slip Op 03360, Ct App 5-24-22

Practice Point: Here, to determine the meaning of the word “accost” as used in the “fraudulent accosting” statute, the Court of Appeals referred only to definitions of the word in dictionaries extant in 1952, when the statute was enacted. and ignored more recent definitions.

 

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