You are here: / Evidence
, ,

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; BECAUSE THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE CONVICTION WAS NOT CHALLENGED IT MUST BE REVERSED NOT REDUCED BY THE APPELLATE COURT; GRAND LARCENY AND POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY CONVICTIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; INADEQUATE PROOF OF VALUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the reckless endangerment, grand larceny, possession of stolen property, and arson third degree convictions, and affirmed the murder, assault and arson second degree convictions. With respect to reckless endangerment first degree, the conviction was against the weight of the evidence and the appellate court could not reduce the conviction to a lesser included because defendant did not argue the evidence was legally insufficient. So the reckless endangerment conviction was reversed. The grand larceny/possession of stolen property convictions were not supported by adequate proof that the value of the stolen vehicle was more than $100. Arson third degree was dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of arson in the second degree:

We agree with defendant … that the verdict finding him guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree is against the weight of the evidence. “A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he [or she] recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person” … . Count five of the indictment alleged that defendant recklessly engaged in conduct creating a grave risk of death to emergency responders when he intentionally started the fire. We agree with defendant that the verdict on that count is against the weight of the evidence because the People did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life when he set the fire … . Inasmuch as defendant is challenging only the weight of the evidence with respect to that count and does not challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to that count, we cannot reduce the conviction to the lesser included offense of reckless endangerment in the second degree … . * * *

We further agree with defendant that the verdict finding him guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree is against the weight of the evidence. With respect to each of those counts, the People were required to establish that the value of the stolen motor vehicle exceeded $100 … . It is well settled that a witness “must provide a basis of knowledge for his [or her] statement of value before it can be accepted as legally sufficient evidence of such value” … . “Conclusory statements and rough estimates of value are not sufficient” … . Although the monetary element of each crime is quite low, the People did not attempt to meet that threshold through the testimony of any witness. The testimony of a detective that the vehicle was “[d]efinitely worth over probably 10,000” did not satisfy the monetary element of either crime inasmuch as he provided no basis of knowledge for his statement of value. We therefore further modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting defendant of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and dismissing counts eight and nine of the indictment. People v Box, 2020 NY Slip Op 01813, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE ASSAULT JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT TRACK THE INDICTMENT, THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBJECT TO IT AND THE APPELLATE COURT MUST ASSESS THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTION; ASSESSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE JURY INSTRUCTION, THE ASSAULT COUNTS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; THE CRIMINAL USE OF A FIREARM JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT TRACK THE INDICTMENT, VIOLATING DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO BE TRIED ONLY ON THE CRIMES CHARGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, reversed the assault convictions, while affirming the murder conviction. The codefendant, intending to kill the decedent, also shot the two assault victims. Defendant was charged with murder and assault as an accomplice. Although the indictment charged assault under a transferred intent theory, the jury was instructed to find the defendant guilty of assault only if he intended injure the assault victims. Because, on appeal, the sufficiency of the evidence must be measured by the what the jury was instructed to consider, and because there was no evidence the defendant intended to injure the assault victims (as opposed to the decedent), the assault convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Although the defendant did not preserve the error by objecting to another inaccurate jury instruction which did not track the indictment, the criminal use of a firearm count was also dismissed because defendant’s right to the tried only on the crimes charged was violated:

“The doctrine of transferred intent’ serves to ensure that a person will be prosecuted for the crime he or she intended to commit even when, because of bad aim or some other lucky mistake,’ the intended target was not the actual victim” … . Although that theory may be applied to assault charges … , County Court’s jury instruction in this case mandated that the jury could convict defendant of the counts of assault in the first degree only if they found that he acted “with the intent to cause serious physical injury to” each assault victim, rather than instructing the jury that they could convict defendant of those crimes if they concluded that he intended to cause such injury to the deceased victim but the codefendant actually caused injury to the assault victims. The prosecution did not object to that charge, and it is well settled that, when reviewing a “jury’s guilty verdict, our review is limited to whether there was legally sufficient evidence . . . based on the court’s charge as given without exception” … . Inasmuch as there is insufficient evidence that defendant knew that either of the assault victims was present or that he intended any harm to either of them … , we conclude that the evidence is not legally sufficient with respect to the assault counts as charged to the jury. * * *

Although the court’s jury instructions did not specify assault in the first degree as the underlying crime for the criminal use of a firearm in the first degree count, and defendant did not object to the court’s instructions and thus did not preserve this issue for our review, we conclude that “preservation is not required” … , inasmuch as “defendant has a fundamental and nonwaivable right to be tried only on the crimes charged” in the indictment … . Therefore, based on the indictment, defendant could only be convicted of that charge if he committed assault in the first degree … . Thus, we conclude that, because “the conviction[s] of assault in the first degree cannot stand, the conviction of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, which requires commission of [the] class B violent felony offense[ of assault in the first degree] while possessing a deadly weapon, also cannot stand” … . People v Spencer, 2020 NY Slip Op 01823, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW A POLICE OFFICER TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN SECURITY CAMERA FOOTAGE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined it was (harmless) error to allow a police officer to identify defendant in security camera footage:

Defendant … contends that the court erred in permitting a police detective to give testimony identifying defendant as the shooter in the security camera footage and drawing certain inferences from that footage … . To the extent that defendant’s contention is preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), we conclude that any error in the admission of that testimony is harmless … . We note that the court sustained at least one objection from defense counsel after a nonresponsive answer from the police detective and issued a curative instruction with respect to that answer, which the jury is presumed to have followed … . We also note that the court’s final instructions to the jury alleviated much of the prejudice of the police detective’s testimony of which defendant now complains. The court instructed the jury that they were the sole and exclusive judges of the facts, that the testimony of police officers should not automatically be accepted, and that defendant’s identity was a disputed issue in the case. The court also instructed the jury how it should evaluate the accuracy of identification testimony. Again, the jury is presumed to have followed those instructions … . People v Jordan, 2020 NY Slip Op 01817, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance ground should not have been denied without a hearing:

… [D]efendant’s CPL 440.10 motion was supported by a notarized but unsworn statement of a witness, dated prior to defendant’s trial, who asserted that defendant had borrowed the witness’s jacket minutes before defendant’s arrest, that the controlled substances in the pockets of that jacket belonged to the witness, and that defendant had no prior knowledge of the controlled substances … . Defendant himself averred in an affidavit submitted in support of his motion that he informed trial counsel prior to trial of the witness’s willingness to testify. Defendant’s motion therefore set forth sufficient facts tending to substantiate his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and we therefore agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying that claim without a hearing … .

We further agree with defendant that the court erred in rejecting his contention that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to either secure police surveillance of the traffic stop that led to defendant’s arrest or seek sanctions for the prosecution’s alleged failure to preserve the same. People v Fox, 2020 NY Slip Op 01809, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should not have been denied without a hearing. The defendant submitted an affidavit from an alibi witness claiming that defendant was out-of-state at the time of the offense and further stating that she had so informed defense counsel. In denying the motion to vacate, Supreme Court noted that defendant did not submit an affidavit from defense counsel. The Fourth Department recognized  that obtaining such an affidavit is problematic where ineffective assistance is alleged:

“It is well established that the failure to investigate or call exculpatory witnesses may amount to ineffective assistance of counsel’ ” … . Contrary to the court’s determination, a “defendant’s failure to submit an affidavit from trial counsel is not fatal to [a CPL 440.10] motion” … . Where, as here, the defendant’s ” application is adverse and hostile to his [or her] trial attorney,’ it is wasteful and unnecessary’ to require the defendant to secure an affidavit from counsel, or to explain his [or her] failure to do so” … . Moreover, to be entitled to a hearing, a defendant is not required to submit with his or her motion evidence corroborating the alibi witness’s affidavit … . Although the lack of corroboration is a factor the court may consider at a hearing, it is not a basis for denying the motion summarily. People v Scott, 2020 NY Slip Op 01807, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

THE POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED THE DEFENDANT POINTED QUESTIONS IN THIS STREET STOP SCENARIO; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the police officer did not have a founded suspicion of criminal activity at the time defendant was asked about the contents of a bag he was carrying. The defendant answered “weed,” was frisked, and a firearm was seized. The evidence should have been suppressed:

The evidence at the suppression hearing establishes that the arresting officer was on routine patrol in what he described as a high-crime area known to be an “open air drug market,” where there had also been numerous burglaries and robberies. That officer had been a member of the police force for only a few months, and he was under the supervision of a training officer. The arresting officer testified that he observed defendant walking on a sidewalk shortly after midnight on a chilly night, with temperatures near 40 degrees, and that defendant was wearing a mask that covered the lower part of his face. The officer had not received any reports of recent crimes in the area, was not responding to any call, and did not observe defendant engage in any illegal activity. The officer pulled his patrol vehicle in front of defendant’s path of travel, exited the patrol vehicle along with the training officer, approached defendant, and asked defendant why he was wearing a mask. Defendant replied that he was walking his dog, and the unchallenged evidence at the hearing establishes that he was indeed walking a dog. * * *

Based on the evidence at the suppression hearing, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that the training officer had the requisite founded suspicion … . Thus, we conclude that the training officer’s inquiry and the subsequent frisk of defendant by the arresting officer was not a proper escalation of the level one encounter. …

We further conclude that the frisk of defendant and seizure of the gun was not justified “as having been in the interests of the officer[‘s] safety, since there was no testimony that the [arresting] officer[ ] believed defendant to be carrying a weapon . . . , and the People presented no other evidence establishing that the [arresting] officer had reason to fear for his safety” … . People v Wallace, 2020 NY Slip Op 01796, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL ATTACHED AT THE PENNSYLVANIA ARRAIGNMENT; SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONING BY PENNSYLVANIA POLICE IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNSEL VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL; NEW YORK POLICE DID NOT MAKE A REASONABLE INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIONAL STATUS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, affirming the suppression of statements made by defendant, determined defendant had requested counsel at his arraignment in Pennsylvania and therefore subsequent questioning by Pennsylvania police about New York (Jamestown) offenses in the absence of counsel violated his right to counsel:

On March 28, 2017, defendant participated in a preliminary arraignment in Pennsylvania … , and the record supports the finding of County Court that defendant requested counsel during that proceeding. On April 4, 2017, members of the Jamestown Police Department traveled to Pennsylvania to interview defendant about the Jamestown arsons. Although the Jamestown police officers ultimately did not interview defendant themselves, they observed while Pennsylvania State Troopers interrogated defendant, in the absence of defense counsel, about the offenses allegedly committed in Pennsylvania. During that interrogation, the Pennsylvania State Troopers also questioned defendant about the New York offenses, and defendant made inculpatory statements about the Jamestown fires. * * *

…[E]even though the interview was carried out by Pennsylvania State Troopers, their interrogation is nevertheless subject to this state’s right to counsel jurisprudence inasmuch as they were agents of the Jamestown police officers … . ,,,

The Court of Appeals has held that “an officer who wishes to question a person in police custody about an unrelated matter must make a reasonable inquiry concerning the defendant’s representational status when the circumstances indicate that there is a probable likelihood that an attorney has entered the custodial matter, and the accused is actually represented on the custodial charge” … . Here, although the [Jamestown] captain asked whether defendant was represented by counsel, based on this record, we conclude that the captain’s inquiry was not reasonable inasmuch as he failed to ask whether defendant had requested counsel. People v Young, 2020 NY Slip Op 01825, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ALONE IN HIS CAR ARGUING WITH SOMEONE ON HIS PHONE WHEN THE POLICE APPROACHED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON FOR THE APPROACH; THE HANDGUN FOUND IN AN INVENTORY SEARCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court and dismissing the indictment, determined the police officers did not have an objective credible reason for approaching defendant, who was in his car outside a nightclub just after the club closed. The defendant was arrested after a check on his license revealed it had been suspended. The handgun found in an inventory search of the car should have been suppressed:

… [D]efendant’s engagement in an argument on his cell phone while alone in his private vehicle — did not provide any apparent nexus to the drug and weapons crimes that police said were typically committed in the area, or give rise to any other objective reason to question his presence. Nothing about a driver’s conduct in arguing on a cell phone, without more, suggests criminal activity related to weapons or drugs … . A sole occupant of a private vehicle arguing with someone who is not present gives rise to no apparent reason for police to intervene, such as potential safety concerns … .

Thus, we find that police did not have the requisite objective, credible reason for approaching defendant’s vehicle in the first instance. The encounter was further invalid because police had no objective, credible reason to extend the initial conversation by running defendant’s driver’s license after he responded to their initial inquiry and provided the information they requested … . The officer gave no explanation for his decision to intrude further at that point, nor does the record reveal such an explanation. Nothing about the exchange with defendant gave rise to any reason to suspect that he was not telling the truth … . Defendant’s driver’s license did not appear to belong to someone else … or reveal anything unusual on its face … . Lacking an objective, credible reason that justified police in approaching defendant’s vehicle and making inquiries, the encounter was invalid at its inception … . People v Stover, 020 NY Slip Op 01676, Third Dept 3-12-20

 

,

SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS RE FIRST DEGREE MURDER; CROSS EXAMINATION OF A POLICE OFFICER RE EXCESSIVE FORCE PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE THE ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT RELEVANT TO CREDIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the second degree murder counts must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the convictions of first degree murder. The court noted that the trial court properly precluded cross examination of a police officer about allegations of the officer’s use of excessive force because the allegations were not relevant to credibility:

While specific and relevant allegations of misconduct in a civil action filed against a law enforcement officer may be used for the limited purpose of impeaching that law enforcement witness at trial … , such impeachment is subject to the court’s broad discretion in controlling the permissible scope of cross-examination … . Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate that specific allegations of excessive force in a federal action pending against the detective and a finding in 2010 by the Civilian Complaint Review Board that the detective used excessive force were relevant to the detective’s credibility … . People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 01632, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

,

PROTECTIVE ORDER PRECLUDING DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a decision by Justice Scheinkman, reversing Supreme Court, vacated a protective order concerning the disclosure of certain evidence to the defense:

I agree with the defendant that the People should have been required to disclose to defense counsel the general nature of the information that the People sought to be protected (see CPL 245.10[1][a] [“Portions of materials claimed to be non-discoverable may be withheld pending a determination and ruling of the court under 245.70 of this article; but the defendant shall be notified in writing that information has not been disclosed under a particular subdivision of (CPL 245.20)”]).

The defendant and his counsel were not informed as to whether what was sought to be protected were only witness names and personal information as opposed to witness statements, police reports, grand jury testimony, video or audio recordings, or other evidence.

I also agree with the defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the People should have been required to disclose information about the reasons for the application that would not reveal the existence of the information sought to be protected. As I stated in People v Bonifacio (179 AD3d 977, 979), “proceedings on applications for a protective order should be entirely ex parte only where the applicant has demonstrated the clear necessity for the entirety of the application, and the submissions in support of it, to be shielded from the opposing party” and that it may be that “even where some aspects of the application should be considered by the court ex parte, other portions of the application may be appropriately disclosable.” Here, much of the written application could have been disclosed to defense counsel in redacted form without any danger of revealing the information sought to be protected … . People v Belfon, 2020 NY Slip Op 01630, Second Dept 3-11-20

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