You are here: / Evidence
, ,

A CHALLENGE TO THE VOLUNTARINESS OF A GUILTY PLEA SURVIVES A VALID WAIVER OF APPEAL; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined (1) a challenge to the voluntariness of a guilty survives a valid waiver of appeal, and (2) a hearing should have been held on defendant’s motion to withdraw the plea:

Because defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of her plea would survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we need not address the validity of that waiver … . We agree with defendant that County Court erred in denying her motion to withdraw her plea without a hearing because the record—specifically, defense counsel’s affidavit swearing that defendant’s plea was coerced—”raises a legitimate question as to the voluntariness of the plea” … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to appoint new defense counsel and to rule on defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea following an evidentiary hearing. People v Gumpton, 2021 NY Slip Op 06519, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

,

ITEMS SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE OVERBROAD SECTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT, IF ANY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING; THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH, NOTWITHSTANDING THE INCLUSION OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN ANONYMOUS INFORMANT WHICH DID NOT SATISFY THE AGUILAR-SPINELLI TEST (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a portion of the search warrant was overbroad and remitted the case for a ruling on what evidence, if any, should be suppressed because it was seized based on the overbroad language. The Fourth Department also determined information provided by an anonymous informant, which was included in the search warrant application, did not satisfy the “Aguilar-Spinelli” test, but that the remaining information in the application provided probable cause. The search warrant was seeking stolen property alleged to have been located in defendant’s residence:

… [I]nsofar as the search warrant application was based on information provided by an anonymous informant, that information was insufficient to establish probable cause. The information in the application concerning the informant failed to “satisf[y] the two-part Aguilar-Spinelli test requiring a showing that the informant is reliable and has a basis of knowledge for the information imparted” … . Nevertheless, we conclude that the remaining information in the warrant application provided probable cause for the warrant … . …

… [P]art of the warrant is overbroad. “The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides that no warrants shall issue except those ‘particularly describing the place to be searched, and the . . . things to be seized’ (US Const 4th Amend). To meet the particularity requirement, the warrant’s directive must be ‘specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer’ ” … . Here, the warrant permitted the Troopers to search for, inter alia, “personal papers, . . . alcohol, . . . safes, . . . any communication and computers that are related to criminal activity, any . . . telephone records, cell phones that [may] contain evidence of a crime or illegal activity and any associated documentation related to any criminal activity.” Those parts of the warrant were overbroad and any evidence seized pursuant to them should have been suppressed … . People v Herron, 2021 NY Slip Op 06512, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

, ,

THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAD REVERSED DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION, STATING IT WAS REVERSING ON WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR THE SAME REASONS IT WAS REVERSING ON LEGAL SUFFICIENCY GROUNDS; THAT CONSTITUTED AN ERROR OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THERE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR PROPER ASSESSMENT OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing People v Romualdo, 2020 NY Slip Op 06559 [188 AD3d 928], Second Dept 11-12-20, remitted the matter for a proper assessment of the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals has the authority to review a weight of the evidence determination when the appellate court failed to consider the issue or did so using an incorrect legal principle. “The Appellate Division’s statement that it was reversing on weight of the evidence grounds for the ‘same reasons’ that it was reversing on legal sufficiency grounds constituted an error of law …”:

The Appellate Division reversed defendant’s [murder] conviction, describing its holding as “on the law and on the facts,” and dismissed the indictment on both legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence grounds … . Both of those determinations were based upon the Appellate Division’s conclusion that “the People presented no evidence placing the defendant at or near the scene of the crime, or linking him in any way to the victim, during the critical time frame in which the murder was believed to have occurred”… . Both holdings were erroneous as a matter of law. * * *

… [A] rational jury could have inferred from the medical evidence presented at trial that the victim was sexually assaulted immediately prior to her death. Inasmuch as defendant’s semen was found on the victim’s genitalia, the semen had not transferred to the victim’s clothing, which was still in a state of disarray when her body was found, defendant lived in close proximity to the crime scene, and defendant falsely denied knowing or having sex with the victim, a rational jury could conclude that defendant was present at the time of the victim’s death and killed the victim during the course of, or immediately after, sexually assaulting her … . Therefore, the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction. … People v Romualdo, 2021 NY Slip Op 06430, Ct App 11-18-21

 

,

THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE DISPLAY OF STATUTORY TEXT ON A VISUALIZER WHEN A JUDGE RESPONDS TO A JURY’S REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the consent of the parties is not required for the display of the relevant statutory text on a visualizer during the judge’s response to a jury’s request for supplemental instruction. Consent of the parties is required for allowing the jury to be provided with copies of the statutory text, but not for the display of the text during the supplemental instruction:

When a deliberating jury requests supplemental instruction, Criminal Procedure Law § 310.30 requires the court to provide a meaningful response. When the jury’s request concerns a relevant criminal statute, the law also permits the court to provide the jury with copies of the statutory text, but only with the consent of both parties. This case asks us to decide whether consent of the parties is required before the court, during a readback of the requested law and relevant definitions, may simultaneously display the corresponding text using a visualizer … . We conclude that consent is not required … . …

During deliberations, the jury sent a note asking for “definitions of the law” and later clarified that they were requesting the elements and relevant definitions of the charged crimes. The jury also asked that this information be displayed on the visualizer.

The judge informed counsel that he would comply with this request and project the relevant statutory text so the jury could see it while the judge read the text aloud. Although defense counsel did not object to the material selected for the readback, he did object to the process of displaying the text for the jury, arguing that “placing [the text] on the visualizer is really [no] different from handing them a written copy.” He asserted that once jurors are handed “instructions in written form, whether it is visually or physically, that they then start having the ability to interpret based on how they see the words, [and] what punctuation may or may not be there . . . .” The judge overruled the objection and proceeded as he had described to the parties. A short time later, the jury convicted defendant on two counts and acquitted him on one count of criminal possession of a weapon. People v Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 06426, Ct App 11-18-21

 

,

EXPERT TESTIMONY ON FALSE CONFESSION AND CROSS-RACIAL IDENDITIFICATION/MISIDENTIFICATION PROPERLY PRECLUDED; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a three-judge dissent, determined the trial judge, after a Frye hearing, properly precluded expert testimony of Dr. Redlich on false confessions. In addition, the trial court properly precluded expert testimony on cross-racial identification/misidentification:

On this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the proffered testimony would not have aided the jury. Although Dr. Redlich is an impressively credentialed researcher, properly qualified by the trial court as an expert in her field, the trial court found that her testimony at the Frye hearing revealed her difficulty in linking her research on the possible causes of false confessions to the case at hand. Despite her review of the witnesses’ testimony at the Huntley hearing, she did not explain how her testimony was at all relevant to the circumstances presented by defendant’s interrogation, even by crediting defendant’s account of the events … . For instance, defendant flatly denied ever making the second, more detailed, confession—so, expert testimony regarding dispositional and situational factors that create a risk of a false confession has no relevance to the oral or written version of that statement. Moreover, defendant maintained that the first handwritten statement was the product of outright coercion—including a physical assault the night before and the deprivation of food and medicine—rather than resulting from psychological coercion of police interrogation that creates the risk of false confession, consistent with a recondite theory of which Dr. Redlich would have testified. There is a difference between the classically, inherently coercive interrogation that produces an involuntary confession—an issue that the jury is well-equipped to understand … —and the phenomenon of false confessions involving the interplay of situational and dispositional factors that produce a coercive compliant false confession from an innocent suspect, an occurrence that the jury may find counterintuitive. People v Powell, 2021 NY Slip Op 06424, CtApp 11-18-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF EVENTS BEYOND WALKING TOWARD THE BUS AT A BUS STOP; SHE SUFFERED A CRUSHED FOOT; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the plaintiff’s verdict in this pedestrian-bus accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff had no memory of the incident beyond walking a couple of feet toward the bus at a bus stop. She suffered a crushed foot. But there was simply no evidence of negligence on the part of the bus driver:

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a jury verdict and for judgment as [*2]a matter of law will be granted where there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusions reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . In determining such a motion, a court must accept the plaintiff’s evidence as true and accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence presented at trial … . However, “[a] jury verdict must be based on more than mere speculation or guesswork” …

Here, there was no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants on the issue of liability. Even if the circumstantial evidence sufficiently supported a conclusion that the plaintiff was injured due to an impact with a bus, the mere fact that the plaintiff was struck by a bus did not prove the defendants’ negligence … . In addition to establishing the fact of the accident, it was the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate what actually happened at the time of the accident so as to enable the jury to find that the defendants were negligent and that their negligence was a proximate cause of the accident … . Kirwan v New York City Tr. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 06350, Second Dept 11-17-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; UNWARNED STATEMENTS MADE DURING CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and unwarned statements made by the defendant under custodial interrogation should have been suppressed. Defendant was interrogated about two missing college students. As the questioning proceeded it became apparent defendant was involved in the matter in some way, and eventually she revealed where the students were:

Defendant orally waived her right to appeal and executed a written waiver of the right to appeal. The language in the written waiver is inaccurate and misleading insofar as it purports to impose “an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal” and purports to deprive defendant of her “attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief, [as well as] all postconviction relief separate from the direct appeal” … . … A “waiver[] cannot be upheld . . . on the theory that the offending language can be ignored and that [it is] enforceable based on the court’s few correctly spoken terms” … . …

… [D]efendant was placed in a conference room and was questioned by an investigator from approximately 3:15 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. At 5:00 p.m., another investigator accompanied defendant to the bathroom, and the investigator continued questioning defendant. During that conversation, defendant made admissions demonstrating that she was more involved in the case than she had initially revealed, that she knew who was holding the students, and that one of the students had been shot. … At no time was she ever given Miranda warnings. People v Hughes, 2021 NY Slip Op 06231, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

, ,

THE LEVEL-THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS NOT MANDATORY AND THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; ON REMAND WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ARE REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the SORA court should not have considered the level three risk assessment mandatory and should have considered the evidence submitted in support of a downward department. On remand, the SORA court was directed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in writing:

Where a “defendant’s prior felony conviction of a sex crime raised his [or her] presumptive risk level from level two to level three . . . , the [SORA] court is not mandated to apply the override but may, in appropriate circumstances, impose a lower risk level”… .

… Supreme Court, in its oral decision, incorrectly treated defendant’s presumptive level three classification as mandatory, and the court therefore never ruled on his downward departure application. We reject the People’s assertion that the court corrected that error in its subsequent written decision. … [T]he written decision explicitly “incorporates . . . [the] oral decision” and again failed to rule on defendant’s downward departure application. … [T]he “compelling evidence” line in the written decision merely summarized the findings of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and was not  … an independent holding or ruling by the court. People v Douglas, 2021 NY Slip Op 06229, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

,

THE SUPPRESSION COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE POLICE OFFICERS’ TESTIMONY ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP CREDIBLE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the suppression court properly deemed the police officers’ testimony about the reasons for the traffic stop credible. After a car chase and a foot chase, a weapon was seized from the vehicle and defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon second. The dissenters argued that the testimony of the police officers was not credible and therefore the People did not meet their burden to show the traffic stop was lawful:

… [W]e reject defendant’s … contention and the dissent’s assertion that the officers’ suppression hearing testimony should be discredited, and thus that the traffic stop should be deemed unlawful, because the officers failed to disclose that they… had a pretextual reason for stopping the vehicle based on information from a confidential informant conveyed to them by another officer in an earlier phone call. The officers acknowledged when the suppression hearing was reopened that they had failed to disclose in their reports or during their prior testimony that they had a pretextual reason for stopping the vehicle based on information from a confidential informant that a firearm may have been in the vehicle. Nonetheless, one of the officers offered a credible explanation for that initial nondisclosure and the other explained that, consistent with their prior testimony, the officers had not received a “call for service,” i.e., a citizen complaint via 911, prior to the traffic stop but, rather, had received a phone call from another officer. We conclude on this record that the officers’ testimony “was not so inherently incredible or improbable as to warrant disturbing the . . . court’s determination of credibility” after it was presented with the initial omissions and subsequent explanations … . People v Addison, 2021 NY Slip Op 06225, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

, ,

THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDITIONED ITS SANDOVAL RULING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CROSS-EXAMINES THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR CRIMINAL HISTORIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the judge’s ruling that defendant can be cross-examined about prior convictions if the defense cross-examines the People’s witnesses on their criminal histories was improper:

A trial court may “make an advance ruling as to the use by the prosecutor of prior convictions or proof of the prior commission of specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts for the purpose of impeaching a defendant’s credibility” … . “[A] balance must here be struck between the probative worth of evidence of prior specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts on the issue of the defendant’s credibility on the one hand, and on the other the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant, measured both by the impact of such evidence if it is admitted after his testimony and by the effect its probable introduction may have in discouraging him [or her] from taking the stand on his [or her] own behalf” and thereby denying the jury significant material evidence … . These considerations “simply do not apply to a witness who is not a defendant, and cross-examination of such a witness should therefore be permitted with respect to any immoral, vicious or criminal act committed by him [or her] which may reflect upon his [or her] character and show him [or her] to be unworthy of belief” … .

… Supreme Court failed to engage in the appropriate balancing between the probative worth of the convictions on the issue of the defendant’s credibility against the possible prejudice to the defendant … , and, instead, improperly conditioned its Sandoval ruling on whether defense counsel would impeach the People’s witnesses with their criminal histories. …  Whether the defendant impeaches the credibility of the People’s witnesses during cross-examination based upon those witnesses’ criminal histories, or whether the People’s witnesses testify, are not relevant factors to consider in making a Sandoval ruling … . People v Brannon, 2021 NY Slip Op 06184, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

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