You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE LINKING DEFENDANT TO A BURGLARY EXCEPT A PARTIAL FINGERPRINT FOUND AT THE SCENE WHICH ONLY MATCHED 15 TO 22.5% OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFENDANT’S INKED PRINT; THE BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s burglary conviction, determined the evidence that a partial fingerprint from the burglary scene matched the defendant was too weak to support the conviction. The conviction was therefore against the weight of the evidence:

On cross-examination, the fingerprint examiner agreed that her opinion is subjective, that two examiners may reach different opinions when examining the same set of prints, and that verification by a second examiner, particularly blind verification, significantly increases the accuracy of fingerprint analysis. She further testified that every individual fingerprint has approximately 80 to 120 classifiable characteristics, and that every characteristic between two prints must be identical for them to be considered a match. Here, because of the limited nature of the partial print, she was only able to match 18 characteristics, meaning that it matched 15% to 22.5% of the characteristics of defendant’s inked print. Further, there was no evidence presented at trial that a second examiner had made a positive verification that the partial print was made by defendant. No other evidence was introduced at trial linking defendant to the crime. People v Jones, 2022 NY Slip Op 03590, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: Here a partial fingerprint matched only 15 to 22.5% of the characteristics of defendant’s inked print and the “match” was not verified by a second examiner conducting a blind verification. There was no other evidence linking defendant to the burglary. The conviction was deemed against the weight of the evidence.

 

,

MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR BURGLARY OF THE ROBBERY-VICTIM’S HOME TO SHOW THE INTENT TO COMMIT ROBBERY AND GRAND LARCENY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE INTENT TO COMMIT ROBBERY AND GRAND LARCENY WAS DEMONSTRATED BY THE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY RENDERING EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR BURGLARY TOO PREJUDICIAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s robbery and grand larceny convictions, determined Molineux evidence of a burglary of the robbery-victim’s home three days before the robbery should not have been admitted to show intent. The intent to rob was demonstrated by the victim’s testimony, rendering proof of the prior burglary more prejudicial than probative:

… [E]vidence that defendant may have been involved in an earlier burglary of the victim’s home was not necessary for the jury to infer that, three days later, defendant had the intent to rob the victim. Rather, defendant’s intent to forcibly steal property can be inferred from the victim’s testimony that defendant, while wielding a baseball bat, directed him to comply with the demands of an unidentified masked gunman to turn over money and property. Under those circumstances, any probative value of the evidence of the prior burglary “is outweighed by its potential for prejudice” … . For the same reason, defendant’s “intent to deprive another of property” … as required for a conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30 [1], [5]), or intent “to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death” as required for a conviction of menacing in the second degree (§ 120.14 [1]) could likewise be easily inferred from the victim’s testimony describing defendant’s conduct during the alleged crimes. People v Dejesus, 2022 NY Slip Op 03584, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: Evidence of defendant’s commission of an uncharged crime (Molineux evidence) to show defendant’s intent to commit the charged offenses will be deemed too prejudicial if the intent element of the charged offenses is demonstrated by the victim’s testimony.

 

,

HARVEY WEINSTEIN’S CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND RAPE CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, affirming Harvey Weinstein’s criminal sexual act and rape convictions, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined the expert testimony about rape trauma was admissible, the Molineux evidence was properly admitted on the issue of intent, and the Sandoval ruling was proper. The opinion is fact-specific and much too detailed to fully summarize here:

… [W]e find that the trial court properly permitted Dr. Ziv to testify. … [D]efendant has presented us with no authority suggesting that rape trauma syndrome has been discredited as a scientific phenomenon … . And because the syndrome is shrouded by certain rape “myths,” we can think of no more appropriate area where a jury requires the elucidation that can be facilitated by an expert witness. In other words, where there was a risk that the jury would be “puzzled” by some of the behaviors of the complainants during and after their sexual encounters with defendant, it was appropriate to admit “evidence of psychological syndromes” that would eliminate that confusion … . After all, defendant made clear that his defense would be based on those behaviors, which he would argue to the jury were inconsistent with how a victim of sexual assault would behave. * * *

From the People’s perspective, there was a significant risk that the jury would have concluded that defendant did not intend to compel the women to have sex with him. By introducing the Molineux evidence, the People were able to counter defendant’s narrative, by showing that the offenses against Haley and Mann were simply more elaborate manifestations of his practice of baiting women with opportunities for career advancement, and then taking advantage, all the while being completely uninterested in whether the women welcomed his advances, and being determined to go forward whether or not they did. Of course, the People could have attempted to prove defendant’s guilt merely by relying on the testimony of Haley, Mann and Sciorra, but that is an insufficient reason to preclude Molineux evidence … . * * *

The amount of Sandoval material is unquestionably large, and, at first blush, perhaps appears to be troublingly so. Nevertheless, in considering the propriety of whether to admit Sandoval material, and how much, the Court of Appeals has plainly stated that “the determination rests largely within the reviewable discretion of the trial court, to be exercised in light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case before it” (People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 208 [2002]). While we acknowledge the sheer size of the impeachment material that the court allowed, we have analyzed that decision within the larger context of all of the circumstances presented by this case, and have concluded that the court providently exercised its discretion…. . People v Weinstein, 2022 NY Slip Op 03576, First Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: The First Department found that the expert testimony about rape trauma syndrome, the extensive Molineux evidence, and the extensive Sandoval evidence were properly admitted in the Harvey Weinstein trial.

 

,

THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING STEMMED FROM ALLEGATIONS RESPONDENT COMMITTED VIOLENT ACTS AGAINST THE MOTHER OF HIS CHILD; THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED “IN FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE;” CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined this juvenile delinquency proceeding should not have been dismissed “in furtherance of justice.” The respondent was charged with acts of violence against the mother of his child:

Dismissal in the furtherance of justice is an extraordinary remedy that must be employed “sparingly, that is, only in those rare cases where there is a compelling factor which clearly demonstrates that prosecution . . . would be an injustice” … . In determining such a motion, the statutory factors which must be considered, individually and collectively, are as follows: “(a) the seriousness and circumstances of the crime; (b) the extent of harm caused by the crime; (c) any exceptionally serious misconduct of law enforcement personnel in the investigation and arrest of the respondent or in the presentment of the petition; (d) the history, character and condition of the respondent; (e) the needs and best interest of the respondent; (f) the need for protection of the community; and (g) any other relevant fact indicating that a finding would serve no useful purpose” … . “At least one of these factors must be readily identifiable and sufficiently compelling to support the dismissal” …

According to the sworn statement of the victim — the mother of respondent’s child — respondent became verbally abusive toward her when she got pregnant, and physically abusive after their child was born, including pinching, punching and slapping her, once when she was holding the child. On the date in question, respondent threw a full, eight-ounce baby bottle at the victim, which hit her in the face, when she asked him to feed the child, who was crying. The victim stated that, although she was bleeding heavily, respondent and his father discouraged her from seeking medical attention. When she eventually did go to the hospital the next day, a cut on her face was glued shut by a doctor and she was told to return for X rays after the swelling had abated. The victim indicated that she felt unsafe living with the child in the home of respondent and his father. Matter of James JJ., 2022 NY Slip Op 03555, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: The allegations of violence in this juvenile delinquency proceeding were deemed too serious to warrant dismissal of the juvenile delinquency proceeding “in furtherance of justice.” This remedy should be used sparingly and at least one of the statutory factors for dismissal in furtherance of justice must be readily identifiable.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S PLEA COLLOQUY NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT (JURAT) OF HIS PERJURY CONVICTIONS; PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the plea to perjury, determined defendant’s plea colloquy negated an essential element of the crime:

… [W]e conclude that defendant is entitled to challenge the plea because he made statements during the colloquy that negated an essential element of the crime … . “A person is guilty of perjury in the third degree when he [or she] swears falsely” … . “A person ‘swears falsely’ when he [or she] intentionally makes a false statement which he [or she] does not believe to be true . . . under oath in a subscribed written instrument” … . An “‘[o]ath’ includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated” … . The document in question was captioned as an “Affidavit of Financial Information.” The preamble begins with the representation that defendant, “being duly sworn, deposes and says the following under penalty of perjury.” The following statement is included above defendant’s signature: “I have carefully read the foregoing statements contained in this Affidavit of Financial Information. They are true and correct.” The document includes defendant’s signature and a jurat completed by defendant’s attorney in July 2017 … . The same is true for the amended affidavit signed in August 2017.

During the plea allocution, defendant explained that he received the affidavit from his attorney by e-mail “and then [he] filled it out on e-mail as well and sent it right back to him.” No statement was made that the attorney actually administered an oath to defendant before he signed the affidavits. Given defendant’s limited explanation of the affidavit sequence, County Court was obligated to further inquire as to the oath element before accepting the plea … . People v Marone, 2022 NY Slip Op 03543, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant’s plea colloquy negated an essential element of the crime. The judge should have inquired further before accepting the plea. Plea vacated.

 

,

THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO PROSECUTED DEFENDANT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been considered by the judge whose law clerk was the District Attorney at the time of defendant’s conviction:

As one of the grounds raised in his CPL article 440 motion, defendant argued that he was deprived of his right to appear before the grand jury due to the actions of the District Attorney. The parties do not dispute that, at the time that defendant’s CPL article 440 motion was decided, the judge’s law clerk was the former District Attorney who had prosecuted defendant. That said, defendant contends that the judge should have recused himself from deciding defendant’s motion. We agree. “Not only must judges actually be neutral, they must appear so as well” … . In view of the law clerk’s direct involvement in defendant’s case during her tenure as the District Attorney and the allegations made in the CPL article 440 motion about her conduct while she was prosecuting him, as well as taking into account the need to maintain the appearance of impartiality, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the judge to decide defendant’s motion … . People v Roshia, 2022 NY Slip Op 03546, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: The judge should not have decided defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction because the judge’s law clerk was the DA who prosecuted defendant.

 

,

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.

 

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