You are here: / Evidence
,

OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the officer who stopped the car in which defendant was a passenger had a reasonable basis to frisk the defendant for safety. The frisk resulted in the seizure of a handgun. At the time of the frisk, the officer knew the defendant was out past his parole curfew and suspected defendant had violated his conditions of parole by consuming alcohol. In addition, defendant was riding in an unregistered car and the driver did not have a license:

A suspect’s status as a parolee is a relevant factor to consider when evaluating the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure  … , particularly where, as here, the officer had reason to believe that defendant was then and there violating both the curfew and alcohol conditions of his parole. The hour was late and the driver was driving an unregistered vehicle without a license. Defendant’s evasive, if not flippant, “sales” response as to why he was on parole, coupled with his repeated denial of alcohol use, heightened the volatility of the situation. Cumulatively, these factors validate County Court’s conclusion that the officer had a reasonable basis to conduct the frisk to assure his own safety … . People v Carey, 2018 NY Slip Op 05376, Third Dept 7-19-18

CRIMINAL LAW (OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (STREET STOPS, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/STREET STOPS (FRISK, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/PAT DOWN SEARCH  (OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (STREET STOPS, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (PAT DOWN SEARCH, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (PAT DOWN SEARCH, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (STREET STOPS, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))/FRISK (PAT DOWN SEARCH, OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND, EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENT NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction for possession of a weapon. In a comprehensive decision too detailed to fairly summarize here the court ruled: the stop of the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger was justified by traffic infractions; the officer’s noticing pictures of firearms on defendant’s phone and the butt of a handgun on defendant’s hip justified asking defendant to step out of the car; defendant’s statement as he got out of the car that he had a handgun on him was admissible; defendant was not entitled to put in evidence his prior statements about his intent to turn the weapon in at the police station; pictures of handguns from defendant’s phone that did not relate to the handgun which was the subject of the possession charge should not have been admitted (harmless error); and defense counsel should have been allowed to cross-examine one of the arresting officers about a federal civil rights suit which had been settled which alleged misconduct with regard to an arrest (harmless error). The court rejected the arguments that the prior statements about turning the handgun in should have been admitted as prior consistent statements or under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule:

… [A]s an essential part of its case-in-chief, the prosecution elicited, through the testimony of a police officer, the defendant’s statement regarding his intent to surrender the gun. As was his right, the defendant elected not to take the stand and subject himself to cross-examination, instead relying upon the officer’s testimony to establish his defense of temporary lawful possession of the weapon. Having so elected, he foreclosed any possibility that the prosecutor would cross-examine him and challenge his defense as a recent fabrication during such questioning. Thus, since the requisite claim of a recent fabrication was absent, the defendant could not adduce evidence of a prior consistent statement to rebut it … . * * *

… [O]our dissenting colleague instead primarily argues that [the] proffered testimony regarding the defendant’s alleged statement to her of his intention to surrender the gun should have been admitted as evidence of the defendant’s state of mind rather than for the truth of its contents, thereby obviating any hearsay objection. However, the defendant never advanced this “state of mind” argument at the trial level, nor does he currently contend on this appeal that his purported statement to Armstrong should have been admitted as evidence of his state of mind. Accordingly, this issue is both unpreserved for appellate review … and not before this Court for consideration on the present appeal … . People v Watson, 2018 NY Slip Op 05342, Second Dept 7-18-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND, EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENT NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/PRIOR CRIMES  (EVIDENCE, HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND (SECOND DEPT))/MOLINEUX HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND (SECOND DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (CROSS-EXAMINATION, HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND (SECOND DEPT))/PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND (SECOND DEPT))/STATE OF MIND (HEARSAY, , HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND (SECOND DEPT))

,

HEARSAY NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE, DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEP

The Third Department, annulling the disciplinary determination and expunging it, determined the hearsay upon which the determination was based was not demonstrated to be sufficiently reliable:

“While hearsay evidence in the form of confidential information may provide substantial evidence to support a determination of guilt, the information must be sufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment to determine its reliability and credibility” … . The only witness called to testify at the hearing was the lieutenant who oversaw the investigation. The lieutenant relied upon information provided by other officers, who reported receiving information from unspecified informants that petitioner was involved in this fight. During his confidential and hearing testimony, the lieutenant recounted that the officers informed him that they had received information from informants, whom they had used in the past and found reliable, that petitioner had engaged in this fight. The lieutenant deemed the reports to be “consistent” and “credible,” but provided no details of their accounts. Moreover, the lieutenant had not interviewed any of the informants and did not know if any of them had actually witnessed the fight. The questioning of the lieutenant about the officers’ and informants’ accounts was cursory, rather than “thorough and specific” as required to provide the Hearing Officer with a basis to gauge the informants’ “knowledge and reliability” … .

While the lieutenant relied upon a to/from memorandum from the sergeant who apparently interviewed some of the informants, that memorandum contains no details regarding the basis for their knowledge or any specificity about their accounts, and does not assert that they had witnessed the fight or any information regarding their past reliability. Under these circumstances, the record is devoid of any basis upon which to conclude that the informants ever provided “detailed and specific” accounts, or that the Hearing Officer had information from which to “gauge the basis for the informant[s’] knowledge of the [fight] and [their] reliability” … . Matter of Maisonett v Venettozzi, 2018 NY Slip Op 05257, Third Dept 7-12-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARSAY NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE, DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES)  (HEARSAY NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE, DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/HEARSAY (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES)  (HEARSAY NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE, DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DETERMINATION PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE’S SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE USED BY THE COLLEGE DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the petitioner was properly disciplined for violation of a college’s sexual assault policy and the procedure followed by the college was proper:

“Where, as here, no hearing is required by law, a court reviewing a private university’s disciplinary determination must determine ‘whether the university substantially adhered to its own published rules and guidelines for disciplinary proceedings so as to ascertain whether its actions were arbitrary or capricious'” … . A university’s determination will be annulled only where it has failed to substantially comply with its procedures or where its determination lacks a rational basis … . …

With respect to hearing submissions, respondent’s procedure permits each party to submit proposed questions or topics for individuals who might testify during the hearing. The procedure specifically grants the chair of the Hearing Panel discretion to “determine which of the parties’ requested questions will be asked or topics covered,” and permits the chair to disregard questions that are irrelevant, prohibited by applicable procedures or law, unduly prejudicial or cumulative. While the Hearing Panel declined to ask the complainant all of the questions that petitioner proposed prior to the hearing, many of the topics of such questions were addressed elsewhere in the record and were thus available for the Hearing Panel’s review. Moreover, as Supreme Court correctly pointed out, the right of confrontation or cross-examination is not directed or guaranteed under respondent’s procedures, nor is it required by the Enough is Enough Law … . Indeed, “[a] student subject to disciplinary action at a private educational institution is not entitled to the full panoply of due process rights,” and “[s]uch an institution need only ensure that its published rules are substantially observed” … . Matter of Doe v Cornell Univ., 2018 NY Slip Op 05255, Third Dept 7-12-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (DETERMINATION PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE’S SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE USED BY THE COLLEGE DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, DETERMINATION PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE’S SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE USED BY THE COLLEGE DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, SEXUAL ASSAULT, DETERMINATION PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE’S SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE USED BY THE COLLEGE DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT))/SEXUAL ASSAULT (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, SEXUAL ASSAULT, DETERMINATION PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE’S SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE USED BY THE COLLEGE DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH PROOF OF THE STAIRWAY FALL CASE WAS ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AND THE JURY WAS PROPERLY GIVEN THE NOSEWORTHY INSTRUCTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict in this stairway-fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff’s decedent was found at the bottom of a deteriorating concrete exterior staircase and later died from his injuries. Although plaintiff’s decedent made some remarks to emergency personnel about the fall, he died before he could be deposed. The Third Department described the evidentiary standards in such a case and found that the “Noseworthy” jury instruction was properly given:

… [P]laintiff had to rely entirely on circumstantial evidence to establish that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of decedent’s fall. In doing so, plaintiff was not “required to rule out all plausible variables and factors that could have caused or contributed to the accident” … . Rather, plaintiff had to prove that defendant’s negligence was the more likely cause of decedent’s fall than any other potential cause… . Plaintiff’s proof had to “render other causes sufficiently remote such that the jury [could] base its verdict on logical inferences drawn from the evidence, not merely on speculation” … . …

We are also unpersuaded by defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in giving a jury charge based upon Noseworthy v City of New York (298 NY 76 [1948]), which — in cases where the alleged negligent act or omission resulted in death — imposes a lighter burden of persuasion on the plaintiff by allowing the jury “greater latitude in evaluating such factual issues as the decedent might have testified to had [he or she] lived” … . The theory behind the Noseworthy charge is “that it is unfair to permit a defendant who has knowledge of the facts to benefit by remaining mute in a wrongful death action where the decedent is unavailable to describe the occurrence” … . The charge, however, is inapplicable “where the plaintiff and the defendant have equal access to the facts surrounding the decedent’s death” … . Tyrell v Pollak, 2018 NY Slip Op 05251, Third Dept 7-12-18

NEGLIGENCE (ALTHOUGH PROOF OF THE STAIRWAY FALL CASE WAS ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AND THE JURY WAS PROPERLY GIVEN THE NOSEWORTHY INSTRUCTION (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH PROOF OF THE STAIRWAY FALL CASE WAS ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AND THE JURY WAS PROPERLY GIVEN THE NOSEWORTHY INSTRUCTION (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ALTHOUGH PROOF OF THE STAIRWAY FALL CASE WAS ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AND THE JURY WAS PROPERLY GIVEN THE NOSEWORTHY INSTRUCTION (THIRD DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (NOSEWORTHY, ALTHOUGH PROOF OF THE STAIRWAY FALL CASE WAS ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AND THE JURY WAS PROPERLY GIVEN THE NOSEWORTHY INSTRUCTION (THIRD DEPT))/NOSEWORTHY (ALTHOUGH PROOF OF THE STAIRWAY FALL CASE WAS ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AND THE JURY WAS PROPERLY GIVEN THE NOSEWORTHY INSTRUCTION (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY THEFT CONVICTION AFFIRMED, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE ITEMS USING A CREDIT CARD AND DRIVER’S LICENSE WITH A FICTITIOUS NAME (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, determined defendant’s conviction for identity theft was not against the weight of the evidence. The defendant had tried to purchase items from a store using a credit card and driver’s license with a fictitious name. The First Department had reversed the conviction finding that, because the name was fictitious, defendant had not assumed the identity of another. The Court of Appeal held that using a fictitious name was prohibited by the identity theft statute:

On appeal, we modified to the extent of vacating the conviction for identity theft, and otherwise affirmed … . We reasoned that in order to establish the crime, a defendant had to both use the victim’s personal identifying information and assume the victim’s identity. We reasoned that while defendant had used the victim’s personal identifying information, he had not assumed her identity, but rather, that of a fictitious person.

The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that defendant had assumed the identity of the victim within the meaning of the statute. The Court rejected defendant’s argument that “the requirement that a defendant assumes the identity of another is not a separate element of the crime,” explaining that the statutory language “simply summarizes and introduces the three categories of conduct through which an identity may be assumed” … . People v Roberts, 2018 NY Slip Op 05220, First Dept 7-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY THEFT CONVICTION AFFIRMED, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE ITEMS USING A CREDIT CARD AND DRIVER’S LICENSE WITH A FICTITIOUS NAME (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTITY THEFT, UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY THEFT CONVICTION AFFIRMED, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE ITEMS USING A CREDIT CARD AND DRIVER’S LICENSE WITH A FICTITIOUS NAME (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTITY THEFT, UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY THEFT CONVICTION AFFIRMED, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE ITEMS USING A CREDIT CARD AND DRIVER’S LICENSE WITH A FICTITIOUS NAME (FIRST DEPT))/IDENTITY THEFT  (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTITY THEFT, UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY THEFT CONVICTION AFFIRMED, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE ITEMS USING A CREDIT CARD AND DRIVER’S LICENSE WITH A FICTITIOUS NAME (FIRST DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress credit cards taken from his wallet after he was placed under arrest after a traffic stop should have been granted. The defendant was arrested after a police officer saw what looked like marijuana in a plastic bag on the floor of the car. Defendant was charged with possessing forged credit cards:

While the police officer’s search of the defendant’s pockets was justified since it arose from a search incident to a lawful arrest… , the subsequent search of the defendant’s wallet was akin to searching a small bag or change purse and was unlawful. “The protections embodied in article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution serve to shield citizens from warrantless intrusions on their privacy interests, including their personal effects”… . “[E]ven a bag within the immediate control or grabbable area’ of a suspect at the time of his [or her] arrest may not be subjected to a warrantless search incident to the arrest, unless the circumstances leading to the arrest support a reasonable belief that the suspect may gain possession of a weapon or be able to destroy evidence located in the bag”… . The proof adduced at the suppression hearing failed to establish the presence of such circumstances … . People v Geddes-Kelly, 2018 NY Slip Op 05195, Second Dept 7-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (TRAFFIC STOP,  ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (TRAFFIC STOP, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC STOPS (EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/WALLETS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. Although the defendant told the police he went to the victim’s house intending to kill him, there was evidence the gun went off when the victim grabbed the gun. The Second Department also noted the prosecutor improperly tried to elicit the jury’s sympathy for the victim:

… [T]he prosecutor’s comments in his opening statement about the grand jury’s indictment were improper. The prosecutor’s comments in his opening statement about the victim and his family, which could only have been intended to evoke the jury’s sympathy, were also improper… . Further, the prosecutor elicited certain testimony from the medical examiner and the victim’s father about the victim’s personal background and the victim’s family that was irrelevant to the issues at trial, and was likewise intended to evoke the jury’s sympathy … . Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this case, the prosecutor’s improprieties did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and any other error in this regard was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that any error contributed to his convictions … . …

Here, the court should have granted the defendant’s request to charge manslaughter in the second degree (reckless manslaughter) as a lesser included offense of murder in the second degree (intentional murder). Reckless manslaughter is a lesser included offense of intentional murder in the second degree … . Moreover, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant did not intentionally pull the trigger at the time the gun was fired … .  People v Cherry, 2018 NY Slip Op 05190, Second Dept 7-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, LESSER INCLCUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE,  A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))

,

POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the show up identification of the defendant should have been suppressed because the police did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the time the police approached and stopped the defendant. The police responded to a 911 dispatch indicating three black men, one with a book bag, had robbed a taxi driver on State Street and were headed east. Within two or three minutes a police officer spotted three men dressed in black, one with a book bag walking on a street west of State Street. Two of the men fled, but defendant remained. After defendant was taken into custody he was identified by the victim in a showup procedure. The Fourth Department noted that the three men were half a mile from the area indicated by the unidentified 911 caller and did not appear to be out of breath. The court also noted the fact that two of the men fled was not enough to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity on defendant’s part. The defendant also moved to suppress a cell phone that was found near where defendant was stopped. Denial of suppression was proper because there was no showing the phone was discarded because of unlawful conduct by the police. A new trial was ordered:

The necessary predicate for stopping and detaining defendant was that the officer have ” at least a reasonable suspicion that [defendant] ha[d] committed, [was] committing, or [was] about to commit a crime’ “… . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that the as-yet unidentified 911 caller was reliable and had a sufficient basis of knowledge… , we conclude that the information available to the detaining officer did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendant. People v Spinks, 2018 NY Slip Op 05103, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOPS, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, STREET STOPS, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION (STREET STOPS, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESSION  (STREET STOPS, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (STREET STOPS, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))/DE BOUR (STREET STOPS, POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET, SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined that it was reversible error to allow the jury to hear evidence of two allegedly forged checks in the second forgery trial after defendant had been acquitted of the charges related to those checks in the first trial. The People were collaterally estopped from introducing evidence related to the acquittals:

At the new trial, notwithstanding that defendant was acquitted of the prior charged criminal conduct involving check numbers 61512 and 61519, the People were permitted to use those checks, over defendant’s objection, in their case-in-chief as evidence of, inter alia, defendant’s criminal intent and motive with respect to check number 61517. In instructing the jury concerning the purpose for which check numbers 61512 and 61519 could be considered, County Court referred to defendant’s alleged involvement with those checks as “uncharged conduct.” The court also instructed the jury: “Regarding evidence of other crimes, there may have been evidence that on another occasion the defendant engaged in criminal conduct.” Defendant contends, inter alia, that the People were collaterally estopped at the new trial from using check numbers 61512 and 61519 as evidence with respect to count two involving check number 61517, and that the court committed reversible error in permitting such evidence. We agree.

We conclude that it was improper for the court to characterize any evidence concerning defendant’s alleged possession of forged checks numbered 61512 and 61519 as “uncharged conduct” or “criminal conduct.” Defendant in fact had been charged, tried, and acquitted of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree with respect to those checks. We therefore further conclude that the People were collaterally estopped by the earlier verdict from presenting any evidence related to check numbers 61512 and 61519 at the new trial … . People v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 05089, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))/MOLINEUX (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))/PRIOR CRIMES AND BAD ACTS  (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))

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