You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

IN THIS SEX-OFFENSE CASE, THE SENTENCING JUDGE VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW BY REFUSING TO DISCLOSE THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT TO THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT PLACING THE REASONS FOR NONDISCLOSURE ON THE RECORD; THE ISSUE SURVIVED THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting for resentencing before a different judge, determined the sentencing judge who reviewed the victim impact statement in this sexual-offense case, and who granted the victim’s request to keep the victim impact statement confidential, violated CPL 390.50, which requires the judge to state the reasons, on the record, for not disclosing a victim impact statement to the defendant. The issue survived defendant’s waiver of appeal:

… [W]e find that defendant’s CPL 390.50 (2) (a) argument must survive the waiver of appeal as the Legislature has, without qualification or restriction, expressly mandated that “[t]he action of the court excepting information from disclosure shall be subject to appellate review” (CPL 390.50 [2] [a]), and courts “may not create a limitation that the Legislature did not enact” … . …

… [T]he record before us does not reflect any ruling by County Court with respect to the victim’s request to except her statement from disclosure. We therefore must conclude that the court failed to set forth “the reasons for its action” on the record, in violation of CPL 390.50 (2) (a) … . The record also does not reflect that any consideration was given to redacting the victim’s statement, leaving defendant wholly “unable to verify the accuracy of the information [therein] or meaningfully respond to it,” in further contravention of the statute … . What is clear, however, is that defendant never had the opportunity to review the victim’s statement and that County Court heavily relied upon it in fashioning its sentence. People v Ortiz, 2022 NY Slip Op 02041, Third Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: If a sentencing judge wishes to withhold a victim impact statement from the defendant, the reasons for nondisclosure must be placed on the record (CPL 390.50). This issue survives a waiver of appeal.

 

,

THE INDICTMENT CHARGED DEFENDANT WITH ASSAULT SECOND AND ATTEMPTED ASSAULT SECOND BUT DID NOT ALLEGE THE USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT; THE PEOPLE’S THEORY AT TRIAL WAS DEFENDANT USED A PVC PIPE AS A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT; BUT, TO CORRECT THE FLAWED INDICTMENT, THE JUDGE, A DAY BEFORE THE END OF THE TRIAL, AMENDED THE INDICTMENT TO CHARGE ASSAULT THIRD AND ATTEMPTED ASSUALT THIRD; THE AMENDMENT PREJUDICED THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, vacating defendant’s conviction with leave to resubmit, determined the indictment should not have been amended at the end of the trial to charge defendant with assault third and attempted assault third, instead of assault second and attempted assault second as originally charged in the indictment. The indictment did not allege the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. The last minute amendment was an effort to correct that charging flaw. However the People’s theory, before the grand jury and at trial, was defendant used a PVC pipe as a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. But, because of the amendment, the jury was not asked to consider the deadly weapon or dangerous instrument element:

An indictment may be amended to correct “matters of form, time, place, names of persons and the like” (CPL 200.70[1]). An amendment must not “change the theory or theories of the prosecution as reflected in the evidence before the grand jury . . . or otherwise tend to prejudice the defendant on the merits” (CPL 200.70[1]). …

… [N]otice could not have been given, because the indictment’s deficiency was not discovered until one day before the trial concluded. This unorthodox correction is not the kind of procedure sanctioned under CPL 200.70 or 300.50. The amendment was therefore not a mere correction of a “misnomer” of the offense in the accusatory clauses of the indictment … . …

… [D]efendant was prejudiced by the amendment. The People’s theory before the grand jury was that Bari’s injuries were caused by the use of a dangerous instrument, i.e., the bike rental sign. The prosecutor in her opening statement made references to the bike rental sign. She did so in her summation even after the court deleted the original second-degree hate crimes and replaced them with third-degree hate crimes. Further, on the People’s case, the prosecutor elicited testimony from Bari to support this theory. Thus, the People tried the case from inception to conclusion, and defendant mounted a defense, on the theory that a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument was used in the commission of the hate crimes. On the last day of the trial, however, the court amended the indictment and charged the jury with variations of third-degree assault, which do not require proof of the existence of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. Thus, after hearing evidence of a dangerous instrument throughout the trial, the jury received instructions that did not require it to find that the People had proven the existence of a dangerous instrument beyond a reasonable doubt to convict defendant of the third-degree hate crimes or the third-degree assault. This result was an impermissible change in the theory of the prosecution. People v Winston, 2022 NY Slip Op 02080, First Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: Here the indictment was flawed because it charged assault second but did not allege use of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. The People’s theory at trial was that defendant used a PVC pipe as a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. A day before the end of the trial, the judge amended the indictment to charge assault third. The amendment was improper and prejudiced the defendant.

 

, , ,

BRADY MATERIAL WAS WITHHELD, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A COMPLAINANT’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WAS NOT ALLOWED; THE INQUIRY AFTER A POLLED JUROR INDICATED SHE MAY NOT HAVE AGREED WITH THE VERDICT WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the assault second conviction and dismissing the count, and reversing the gang assault and assault first convictions, determined: (1) Brady material was withheld by redacting the name of a 911 caller who indicated defendant was not involved in the assault; (2) cross-examination of a police officer about a discrepancy between a complainant’s testimony and a statement attributed to the complainant in a police report should have been allowed; and (3) the judge should have inquired further after a juror indicated she “was not sure” about some of the convictions when the jury was polled:

While the contents of the 911 call may have provided some clues as to the identity of the caller, the defendant should not be forced to guess as to the identity of this caller. In addition, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable possibility that disclosure of the caller’s identity and contact information would have led to evidence that would have changed the result of the proceedings … . …

… [T]he court erred in precluding defense counsel from questioning the police witness about the contents of the report and the alleged prior inconsistent statement of complainant one …  . …

… [W]hen the jury was polled and asked if the verdict was theirs, juror number nine stated, “Um, I’m not sure, with some, but most of them, yes.” Although the Supreme Court thereafter inquired of juror number nine if the verdict announced to the court was her own, it did so by asking her “is that a yes or a no” in the presence of the remaining jurors, despite evidence before the court suggesting that juror number nine may have succumbed to pressure to vote with the majority even though she did not agree with the verdict as to certain counts. The court’s inquiry was therefore not sufficient … . People v Ramunni, 2022 NY Slip Op 02022, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Here Brady material, the identity of a 911 caller, was withheld, cross-examination about inconsistent statements attributed to a complainant was not allowed, and a juror who, when polled, said she may not have agreed with verdict was not sufficiently questioned by the judge. One count of the indictment was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered on the gang assault and assault first counts.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM AND WAS PENALIZED FOR REJECTING THE JUDGE’S PLEA OFFER AND GOING TO TRIAL; THE ISSUES WERE NOT PRESERVED BUT WERE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating one conviction and reducing the sentence for another, exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction over the unpreserved errors, determined defendant had been deprived of his right to confront a witness against him and the judge imposed a harsher sentence because defendant exercised his right to a trial:

… [T]he defendant was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine a DMV employee who was directly involved in sending out the suspension notices or who had personal familiarity with the mailing practices of the DMV’s central mail room or with the defendant’s driving record … . Thus, the testimony of the DMV employee was improperly admitted in order to establish an essential element of the crime of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree in violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation … . …

… [P]rior to trial, the Supreme Court made its own plea offer to the defendant of an aggregate term of 1½ years of imprisonment to be followed by a period of 2 years of postrelease supervision in full satisfaction of the 16-count indictment … .The court … stated to the defendant: “You should understand the way I operate is as follows: Before trial with me you get mercy; after trial you get justice” … . The defendant declined the plea offer and proceeded to trial, after which he was acquitted of the top counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The court then sentenced the defendant on the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree to a term of 5 years of imprisonment to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of 2 years. People v Ellerbee, 2022 NY Slip Op 02016, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Here the DMV employee who had personal knowledge of the mailing of the license suspension notice to defendant and the defendant’s driving record apparently was not called as a witness. Therefore defendant was deprived of his right to confront the witness about an essential element of the offense. In addition, the judge imposed a much harsher sentence than that offered as part of a plea bargain. The judge thereby penalized the defendant because he chose to go the trial. Both of these errors were not preserved for appeal but were considered in the interest of justice.

 

,

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), PROHIIBITING CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS FROM RESIDING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, APPLIES TO SEX OFFENDERS WHO ARE UNDER POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS); THE DISSENT ARGUED SARA, BY ITS TERMS, APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE ON PAROLE OR CONDITIONALLY RELEASED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined the residency requirement of the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA) is a mandatory condition of postrelease supervision (PRS) for sex offenders subject to SARA. The dissent argued the applicable statutes do not mention postrelease supervision (PRS) and, by their terms, apply only to defendants who are on parole or conditionally released:

In 1998, the legislature enacted the Sentencing Reform Act, amending the Penal Law to largely “abolish parole” for most felony offenses, including serious sexual offenses, and institute determinate terms of imprisonment to be followed by periods of postrelease supervision … . …[T]the legislature added Penal Law § 70.45 (3)—entitled “[c]onditions of post-release supervision”—which provides that the Board of Parole “shall establish and impose conditions of post-release supervision in the same manner and to the same extent as it may establish and impose conditions in accordance with the executive law upon persons who are granted parole or conditional release.” Further, Penal Law § 70.40 was amended to add references to postrelease supervision; namely Penal Law § 70.40 (1) (b) provides that “conditions of release including those governing postrelease supervision, shall be such as may be imposed by the [Parole Board] in accordance with the provisions of the executive law.” … . …

The SARA residency restriction bars offenders convicted of certain sex offenses from residing within 1,000 feet of a school (see Executive Law § 259-c [14] …). Specifically, it provides that, when certain offenders are “released on parole or conditionally released pursuant to subdivision one or two of this section,” the Parole Board “shall require, as a mandatory condition of such release, that such sentenced offender shall refrain from knowingly entering into or upon any school grounds … . …

Penal Law §§ 70.45 (3) and 70.40 (1) (b), when read together with SARA, mandate that the SARA residency restriction be applied equally to offenders released on parole, conditional release, or subject to a period of postrelease supervision. Matter of Alvarez v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 01957 Ct App 3-22-22

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which prohibits certain sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of a school, does not apply to those under postrelease supervision (PRS).

 

,

DEFENDANT, AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, AGREED TO A SENTENCE OF 20 DAYS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE; AT SENTENCING, AFTER DEFENDANT HAD COMPLETED THE COMMUNITY SERVICE, THE PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE BARGAINED-FOR SENTENCE WAS A ONE-YEAR CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE; ON APPEAL DEFENDANT ARGUED HE NEVER AGREED TO THE CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY; THE MAJORITY HELD THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DeFiore, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined defendant’s argument that his plea was invalid because he was not informed that a one-year conditional discharge (CD) would be imposed, was not preserved for appeal. Defendant argued only the community-service sentence was agreed to at the time of the plea and the subsequent imposition of the conditional discharge rendered the plea involuntary:

Defendant challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea, asserting that the court in its plea colloquy failed to advise him that the 20 days of community service to be imposed would be a condition of a sentence of a one-year conditional discharge. At the outset of the sentencing proceeding, the defense counsel and prosecutor affirmatively acknowledged to the court that the bargained-for sentence to be imposed was a conditional discharge. Prior to imposition of that sentence, defendant who had the practical ability to do so, failed to protest or otherwise seek to withdraw his guilty plea. As a result, defendant’s claim that the court’s imposition of an alleged new sentence rendered his guilty plea involuntary is unpreserved for our review. * * *

From the dissent:

Defendant … pleaded guilty to a reduced charge in exchange for a noncarceral sentence of 20 days of community service, along with a mandatory surcharge and temporary suspension of his driver’s license. When defendant appeared after completing his community service and without further criminal incident, the sentencing should have been in accord with the prosecutor and defendant’s agreement. Instead, the court imposed additional year-long conditions that were not agreed to and never mentioned during the plea colloquy or prior to sentencing. As a consequence, defendant’s plea is invalid … . People v Bush, 2022 NY Slip Op 01956, Ct App 3-22-22

Practice Point: Here defense counsel, at the outset of sentencing, acknowledged that the bargained-for sentence was a one-year conditional discharge. On appeal, the defendant argued that, at the time of the plea, he agreed only to a sentence of 20 days of community service, rendering his guilty plea involuntary. The majority held the issue was not preserved for appeal because defendant was alerted to the conditional-discharge sentence at the time of sentencing and did not move to withdraw his plea. The three-judge dissent agreed with defendant’s argument that his plea was involuntary.

 

,

AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP BASED ON THE LICENSE PLATES NOT MATCHING THE VEHICLE, DEFENDANT PRESENTED HIS TEMPORARY REGISTRATION AND EXPLAINED THE PLATES HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM A DIFFERENT VEHICLE; AT THAT POINT THE AUTHORIZATION TO DETAIN DEFENDANT CEASED; THE SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant possession of a controlled substance conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the police, after making a valid traffic stop of defendant’s vehicle, did not have the authority to detain him after he presented his temporary registration and explained that the license plates had been transferred from another vehicle:

… [T]he justification for the officer’s initial detention ceased once defendant showed the officer the temporary registration that had been issued for the vehicle and explained that the license plates on the vehicle had recently been transferred from another vehicle … .. We further conclude that the record does not support the court’s determination that the circumstances following the initial stop provided the officer with probable cause to believe that defendant was violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 507 (2) … . Indeed, the record does not support the court’s finding that, when defendant produced a learner’s permit upon being asked to produce his driver’s license, the officer asked defendant to exit the vehicle due to the lack of a valid driver’s license. Thus, inasmuch as “the initial justification for seizing and detaining defendant . . . was exhausted” at the time of defendant’s removal from the vehicle, the evidence seized during the ensuing search of defendant’s person, as well as the statements that he made to the police thereafter, should have been suppressed … .People v Betsey-Jones, 2022 NY Slip Op 01924, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Here the police stopped defendant because the license plates did not match the color and make of defendant’s vehicle in the DMV database. Once the the defendant showed the officer his temporary registration and explained the license plates had been transferred from a different vehicle, the justification for the detention of the defendant ceased. Any statements made and evidence seized after that point should have been suppressed.

 

,

THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE THE DRUGS WERE FOUND; DEFENDANT’S MERE PRESENCE IN THE VICINITY OF THE DRUGS DID NOT PROVE HIS POSSESSION OF THE DRUGS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a controlled substance conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s constructive possession of the drugs was not demonstrated. There was no proof defendant exercised dominion and control over the area in which the drugs were found, as opposed to merely being present in the vicinity of the drugs:

Where there is no evidence that the defendant actually possessed the controlled substance, the People are required to establish that the defendant “exercised ‘dominion or control’ over the property by a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband is found or over the person from whom the contraband is seized” … . The People may establish constructive possession by circumstantial evidence … , but a defendant’s mere presence in the area in which contraband is discovered is insufficient to establish constructive possession … . People v Mighty, 2022 NY Slip Op 01923, Fourth Dept 3-18-18

Practice Point: If a defendant does not physically possess the drugs, to prove constructive possession, the People must demonstrate the defendant exercised dominion and control over the area where the drugs were found, perhaps by proving defendant resided there, for example.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO PRONOUNCE THE DEFINITE TERM COMPONENT OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE AND REMITTAL FOR RESENTENCING; THE ISSUE SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting for resentencing, determined the definite term component of the sentence was not pronounced by the court:

CPL 380.20 provides that a court “must pronounce sentence in every case where a conviction is entered.” That statutory requirement is “unyielding” … . A violation of CPL 380.20 “may be addressed on direct appeal notwithstanding [any] valid waiver of the right to appeal or the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for appellate review” … . “When the sentencing court fails to orally pronounce a component of the sentence, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for resentencing in compliance with the statutory scheme” … .

Here, although the certificate of conviction states that defendant was sentenced to a split sentence of a definite term of time served in jail and five years of probation, which is consistent with the sentencing promise made during the plea proceeding, the court failed to orally pronounce during the sentencing proceeding the definite term component of defendant’s sentence as required by CPL 380.20 … . People v Adams, 2022 NY Slip Op 01921, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Every component of a sentence must be “pronounced” by the judge in open court or the sentence will be vacated.

 

,

IN RESPONSE TO A BATSON INQUIRY, THE PROSECUTOR’S REASON FOR STRIKING THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR IN FACT RELATED TO ANOTHER PROSPECTIVE JUROR FOR WHOM DEFENDANT HAD EXERCISED A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined that, in response to a Batson inquiry, the prosecutor’s reason for striking the prospective juror did not, in fact, relate to the correct prospective juror. Rather, the prosecutor’s reason related to another prospective juror for whom the defendant had exercised a peremptory challenge:

… [T]he prosecutor stated that the reason that he exercised a peremptory challenge on the prospective juror at issue was due to “her answer as to why she wanted to sit on the jury.” Specifically, the prosecutor explained that the prospective juror expressed an “odd interest in the defendant’s right to remain silent, right to testify,” and that “[t]he way she answered the question . . . was very strange.” However, … the statements the prosecutor attributed to the prospective juror at issue were, in fact, made by a prospective juror upon whom defendant exercised a peremptory strike. Because “a proffered race-neutral reason cannot withstand a Batson objection where it is based on a statement that the prospective juror did not in fact make” … , “an equal protection violation was established” … .People v Douglas, 2022 NY Slip Op 01919, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: If, pursuant to a Batson inquiry, the prosecutor refers to answers given by the wrong prospective juror, a new trial will be ordered.

 

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