You are here: / Criminal Law
,

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.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONVICTION OF THE B MISDEMEANORS WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED WOULD RESULT IN DEPORTATION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined that the defendant did not demonstrate the misdemeanors with which he was charged triggered a right to a jury trial because conviction would result in deportation:

Defendant was originally charged with public lewdness, two counts of forcible touching, and two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree after police officers observed him masturbating on a subway platform and pressing himself against two women on a subway car. The People thereafter filed a prosecutor’s information reducing the two class A misdemeanor charges of forcible touching to attempted forcible touching, so that the top charges against defendant were Class B misdemeanors obviating his right to a jury trial under state statute … . After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of public lewdness and acquitted of all other charges. …

While the Appellate Term first improperly conducted the deportability analysis based only on the crime of conviction, that court went on to correctly analyze defendant’s deportability based on all the charges he faced (see Suazo, 32 NY3d at 508). It remained, however, “the defendant’s burden to overcome the presumption that the crime charged is petty and establish a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial” (id. at 507). … [D]efendant’s conclusory allegation that he was deportable if convicted “on any of the charged B misdemeanors,” supported by a bare citation to 8 USC § 1227 (a) (2) (A) (ii), under which an alien is deportable if “convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct,” was insufficient to establish his right to a jury trial. People v Garcia, 2022 NY Slip Op 03359, CtApp 5-24-22

Practice Point: Generally B misdemeanors do not warrant a jury, as opposed to a bench, trial. However, if conviction will result in deportation, the defendant has a right to a jury trial. Here the Court of Appeals held the defendant did not demonstrate conviction of the B misdemeanors with which he was charged triggered deportation.

 

, , ,

THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS “COMPRESSION OF THE DIAPHRAGM” (BY KNEELING, SITTING OR STANDING ON A PERSON) WHEN EFFECTING AN ARREST IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYC Administrative Code provision prohibiting and criminalizing the use of certain methods of restraint in effecting an arrest was not void for vagueness.

Plaintiffs challenge Administrative Code § 10-181 as unconstitutionally vague and preempted by New York State law. This provision, which became effective July 15, 2020, makes it a criminal misdemeanor to use certain methods of restraint “in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest” (Administrative Code § 10-181[a]). Specifically, the statute prohibits “restrain[ing] an individual in a manner that restricts the flow of air or blood by compressing the windpipe or the carotid arteries on each side of the neck [the chokehold ban], or sitting, kneeling, or standing on the chest or back in a manner that compresses the diaphragm [the diaphragm compression ban]” ,,, , …

The only language plaintiffs take issue with is “in a manner that compresses the diaphragm.” But the meaning of this language, even if “imprecise” or “open-ended,” is sufficiently definite “when measured by common understanding and practices” … . Police officers — the targets of the law — can be (and are) trained on the location and function of the diaphragm. And even plaintiffs have no difficulty understanding the meaning of the word “compress[]” when used in the context of the accompanying chokehold ban, which they do not challenge. That it may not be the most accurate word, from a medical standpoint, to describe what happens to the diaphragm when someone sits, kneels, or stands on it does not mean that it is incapable of being understood. Police Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y., Inc. v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 03329 First Dept 5-19-22

Practice Point: The NYC Administrative Code provision which prohibits and criminalizes “compressing the diaphragm” by sitting, kneeling or standing on a person when effecting an arrest is not void for vagueness.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE RELEVANT DECISION [PEOPLE VS RUDOLPH] CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED, THE DECISION CAME DOWN BEFORE DEFENDANT’S APPELLATE PROCESS WAS COMPLETE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER HE SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).

The Third Department, noting that the relevant law was announced after defendant’s sentencing but while the appeal was pending, determined County Court’s failure to consider whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status required vacation of the sentence and remittal for resentencing:

There is no dispute that Rudolph [21 NY2d at 499], which was decided after defendant was sentenced but before the appellate process was complete, required County Court to make a determination as to whether defendant, as an eligible youth, should be adjudicated a youthful offender, notwithstanding that no request was made for such treatment (see CPL 720.20 [1] …). Whether to grant youthful offender status lies within the discretion of the sentencing court and cannot be dispensed with through the plea-bargaining process … . Although this Court is “vested with the broad, plenary power to modify a sentence in the interest of justice, . . . and, if warranted, exercise our power to adjudicate [a] defendant a youthful offender” … , we decline defendant’s invitation to do so here, in the complete absence of any consideration by the sentencing court, either summarily or otherwise, as to whether defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender. As such, we deem it appropriate, under such circumstances, to remit the matter to permit County Court the opportunity to make the initial discretionary determination as to whether youthful offender status for defendant is warranted, after the parties fully set forth their positions for and against such treatment … . Without expressing any opinion as to whether youthful offender adjudication should be afforded defendant, in the event that County Court grants such status upon remittal, which would result in the court imposing a lower sentence than the parties negotiated[*2], the People must be given an opportunity to withdraw consent to the plea bargain … People v Simon, 2022 NY Slip Op 03277, Third Dept 5-19-22

Practice Point: Even if the requirement that youthful offender status be considered for all potentially eligible defendants was not in force when a defendant was sentenced, if the decision imposing the requirement (People vs Rudolph) came down before defendant’s appellate process was complete, defendant is entitled to resentencing applying the new law.

 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, REVERSED THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT WHICH HAD REVERSED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT DURING A SIDEBAR CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE BIAS OF A PROSPECTIVE JUROR; THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER ISSUES AND FACTS RAISED IN THE APPEAL BUT NOT CONSIDERED BY THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, without explanation, reversed the Fourth Department which had reversed defendant’s conviction on the ground defendant was not present during a side bar conference concerning the bias of a prospective juror: People v McKenzie-Smith, 2022 NY Slip Op 03308, CtApp 5-19-22

From the Fourth Department Decision (Reversed Without Explanation by the Court of Appeals):

A … prospective juror was peremptorily excused by defendant’s counsel, however, and, during a sidebar conference at which defendant was not present, that juror was questioned “to search out [her] bias, hostility or predisposition to believe or discredit the testimony of potential witnesses” (Antommarchi, 80 NY2d at 250). Consequently, we conclude that, “absent a knowing and voluntary waiver by defendant of his right to be present at that sidebar conference, his conviction cannot stand” … . The only evidence in the record concerning a waiver consists of a conversation between the court, defendant’s counsel and codefendant’s counsel that occurred after the prospective juror was excused, in which codefendant’s counsel indicated that he had just discussed with codefendant the right to approach the bench during such conferences, and defendant’s counsel merely assented. Inasmuch as the discussion was vague and prospective, and there is no indication that defendant or defendant’s counsel were waiving defendant’s Antommarchi rights retrospectively, that conversation is insufficient to establish that defendant waived those rights concerning the questioning of the prospective juror at issue here. We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial. People v Mckenzie-Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 05653, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

Practice Point: The Fourth Department had reversed defendant’s conviction on the ground the defendant was not present at a sidebar conference when the bias of a prospective juror was discussed. Here the Court of Appeals reversed without explanation and sent the case back to the Fourth Department for consideration of other issues raised in the appeal.

 

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