You are here: / Evidence
,

EVIDENCE OF AN UNRELATED DRUG SALE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction in a drug-sale case because evidence of a prior unrelated drug sale was allowed to be introduced. There was no issue in the case to which the prior crime pertained. The evidence was not necessary to demonstrate defendant’s motive. The prejudicial effect of the evidence, therefore, outweighed its probative value:

 

Evidence of prior bad acts or uncharged crimes may be admissible to show motive to commit a crime under one of the traditional Molineux exceptions — where the probative value exceeds its prejudicial effect … . That said, “there is usually no issue of motive in a drug sale case, as the seller’s motivation is nearly always financial gain” … . Moreover, “evidence of similar uncharged crimes has probative value, but as a general rule it is excluded for policy reasons because it may induce the jury to base a finding of guilt on collateral matters or to convict a defendant because of his [or her] past” … . The [evidence in question] is highly suggestive of an illicit drug transaction, and it is difficult to discern any relevant impact other than to show defendant’s criminal propensity. As this case largely turned on [a witness’] credibility, we cannot characterize the error in admitting this evidence as harmless, notwithstanding County Court’s curative instruction … . People v Magee, 2016 NY Slip Op 00399, 3rd Dept 1-21-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF UNRELATED PRIOR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE OF UNRELATED PRIOR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/MOLINEUX (EVIDENCE OF UNRELATED PRIOR CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, CONVICTION REVERSED)

,

WHERE A WITNESS STATES SHE DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION AS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT.

The Third Department determined County Court properly denied defense counsel’s request to enter the victim’s statement in evidence as a prior inconsistent statement. The court explained that, where a witness states she does not recall making a statement, it is necessary to call a witness who was present when the statement was made to lay a proper foundation for admission. The court also noted that the statement was not so inconsistent with the witness’ testimony as to warrant its use in cross-examination. With respect to the foundation for the evidence, the court wrote:

 

“It is well established that a witness’ prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach his [or her] trial testimony [a]nd the test of inconsistency . . . is not limited to outright contradictions between a witness’ prior statements and his [or her] trial testimony” … . However, before a witness may be impeached with such a statement, a proper foundation must be laid … , and, “[i]f the witness denies that the statement was made or does not remember making it, he or she may be impeached by the testimony of others who heard the statement” … .

Here, while cross-examining the victim at trial, defense counsel questioned her about the statement that she gave to State Trooper Joseph Smith several hours after the attack occurred. Specifically, counsel asked the victim if she remembered giving a statement to Smith, to which she said, “I don’t recall. I don’t remember a lot.” Counsel then asked, “You don’t remember giving a statement?” to which the victim answered, “I remember giving a statement, yes, I do, but everything was jumbled.” Counsel then asked if the victim remembered telling Smith that she was sleeping on the couch just before the altercation. The victim denied making such statement and explained that she told Smith that she was lying on the couch trying to go to sleep. After being shown the statement by counsel, the victim confirmed that it was, in fact, the statement she vaguely recalled being read to her by Smith and that she had signed. Defendant then unsuccessfully attempted to offer the victim’s statement into evidence. County Court sustained the People’s hearsay objection, noting that Smith was available to be called as a witness and questioned with regard to the victim’s statement. Inasmuch as defendant failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of this hearsay evidence, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s ruling. People v Maxam, 2016 NY Slip Op 00391, 3rd Dept 1-21-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WHERE WITNESS DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION AS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WHERE WITNESS DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION AS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT)/PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, WHERE WITNESS DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION)

,

WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS NOT OVERWHELMING, COUNTY COURT’S ERROR IN ALLOWING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WHICH THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY PRECLUDED REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL.

The Third Department determined it was reversible error to allow a police officer’s testimony identifying defendant as a person depicted in surveillance video from a store about an hour before the robbery of which defendant was convicted. Defendant claimed he was shopping in the store at the time of the robbery. The evidence of defendant’s participation in the robbery was not overwhelming. The trial judge had ruled the video could be introduced in evidence but no testimony identifying the defendant as a person depicted in the video could be offered. At trial, however, over objection, Cornell, a police officer, was permitted to identify the defendant in the video:

 

… [E]arlier in the proceedings County Court had ruled that, to the extent that the People were going to offer such surveillance footage into evidence, they were precluded from offering testimony identifying defendant in such footage. Cornell then testified on direct examination that he obtained the video surveillance footage from the store where defendant had claimed to have been shopping at the time of the robbery and described a group of five people that entered at approximately 6:20 p.m. and left at approximately 6:45 p.m., approximately one hour before the robbery. Upon the People’s question, “And the group being [defendant], three women and a toddler,” Cornell answered, “That’s correct.” Defendant objected to the question and the answer, which was overruled by County Court. Inasmuch as this testimony violated County Court’s prior ruling because it identified defendant as being the individual in the video who was accompanied by three women and a toddler, it should have been precluded.

Based upon the record before us, County Court’s evidentiary error in permitting Cornell’s identification testimony of defendant in the surveillance video cannot be deemed harmless. Specifically, under the particular factual circumstances of this case, the evidence of defendant’s guilt, although legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, was not overwhelming given the lack of direct evidence linking defendant to the crime and the conflicting witness testimony regarding defendant’s presence at the crime scene … . People v Myrick, 2016 NY Slip Op 00217, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS NOT OVERWHELMING, ALLOWING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY PRECLUDED WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/EVIDENCE (WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS NOT OVERWHELMING, ALLOWING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY PRECLUDED WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)

, ,

DEFENDANT, WHICH OPERATED A STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAM, OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO INJURED STUDENT; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PRESENTED NO AFFIRMATIVE PROOF ON CAUSATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THAT ISSUE NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant synagogue’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Plaintiff was a participant in a study-abroad program run by defendant in Israel. She injured her knee and alleged she was prescribed physical therapy but defendant refused to provide it (delaying and compromising recovery). The First Department held defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff because it had agreed to provide medical care and was in the best position to protect plaintiff from injury. The court noted that defendant’s attempt to place the burden on plaintiff to demonstrate a causal link between her injury and the failure to provide physical therapy must fail in the context of a defense summary judgment motion. The burden never shifted to plaintiff on that issue because the defendant did not demonstrate, through an expert affidavit, the absence of causation. [Yet another example of the need for a defendant to present affirmative proof on every relevant issue when seeking summary judgment. Without affirmative proof on a necessary issue, the burden never shifts to plaintiff.]:

 

The existence of a duty depends on the circumstances, and the issue is one of law for the court; “the court is to apply a broad range of societal and policy factors” … .

In determining the threshold question of whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty of care, courts must balance relevant factors, “including the reasonable expectations of parties and society generally, the proliferation of claims, the likelihood of unlimited or insurer-like liability, disproportionate risk and reparation allocation, and public policies affecting the expansion or limitation of new channels of liability” … . The parties’ relationship may create a duty where it “places the defendant in the best position to protect against the risk of harm [] and [] the specter of limitless liability is not present” … . Thus, where a defendant exercises a sufficient degree of control over an event, a duty of care to plaintiff may arise … .

Here, the parties’ relationship created a duty to provide plaintiff with the necessary medical care because not only did defendant agree to do so, it was in the “best position to protect against the risk of harm” and “the specter of limitless liability [was] not present” … . The program was not an ordinary college or study-abroad program. Indeed, the second “semester” did not take place in a university environment. Rather, it took place in Yerucham, a small town in the Negev desert, involved volunteering, and was supervised by counselors who did “[p]retty much everything,” including responding to medical issues. Under the circumstances, defendant exercised a sufficient degree of control over the program to create a duty of care to plaintiff … . Katz v United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, 2016 NY Slip Op 00094, 1st Dept 1-12-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (OPERATOR OF STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAM OWED DUTY OF CARE TO INJURED STUDENT)/DUTY OF CARE (OPERATOR OF STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAM OWED DUTY OF CARE TO INJURED STUDENT)/EVIDENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVIDE AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE OF CAUSATION IN ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, BURDEN ON THAT ISSUE NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST SUBMIT AFFIRMATIVE PROOF ON ISSUE OF CAUSATION OF INJURY, ABSENT AFFIRMATIVE PROOF BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF ON THAT ISSUE)

, ,

SUPPRESSION OF JUVENILE’S PROVIDING FALSE NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH TO POLICE OFFICER PROPERLY DENIED; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION BASED UPON THE FALSE PEDIGREE INFORMATION PROPER.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined suppression of the juvenile’s giving a false name and date of birth when asked for that information by a police officer was properly denied. The juvenile was warned by the officer that providing false pedigree information would result in a false personation charge (a class B misdemeanor). The juvenile was in fact found to have committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute false personation. The court further determined the sentence of probation was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the juvenile’s needs. The dissent focused on the propriety of the sentence. With respect to the denial of the suppression motion, the court explained:

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress her statement to the police, in which she gave a false name and date of birth, resulting in the false personation charge (Penal Law § 190.23). The police had probable cause to believe appellant was a runaway … . The then 14-year-old appellant, who appeared to be as young as 13, was alone in a PATH station in New Jersey, but she vaguely claimed to live in “upstate” New York. In addition, she had a bruised eye and was wearing provocative clothing, suggesting the possibility of some kind of sexual exploitation. The police were entitled to ask pedigree questions without Miranda warnings, even though an officer warned appellant, as required by the false personation statute, that providing false information would result in an additional charge … . Matter of Christy C., 2016 NY Slip Op 00095, 1st Dept 1-12-16

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MOVE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE LEARNED AT TRIAL CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move to reopen the suppression hearing. Defendant was convicted of burglary. A bag of tools was the subject of a suppression motion. At the suppression hearing, the police officer testified the bag was open at defendant’s feet. The suppression court ruled the “burglar’s tools” were properly seized under the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement. At trial, the building superintendent who stopped the defendant testified the bag was in defendant’s hand and closed when the police arrived. Based on that new information, defense counsel should have requested the reopening of the suppression hearing:

 

Under CPL 710.40(4), a suppression hearing may be reopened upon a showing that the defendant has discovered “additional pertinent facts” that “could not have [been] discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion.” Here, the additional facts were “pertinent” because the superintendent’s testimony, if credited, would have undermined the ruling that the tools were admissible because they were in plain view. This was not a minor or routine inconsistency; the superintendent’s version was completely at odds with a plain view theory. Any issue of whose recollection was most reliable should have been presented to the hearing court. People v Kindell, 2016 NY Slip Op 00027, 1st Dept 1-7-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE)/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASIED ON NEW EVIDENCE)/SUPPRESSION (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE)

, ,

VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER PROPERLY ADMITTED IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL TO SHOW LARCENOUS INTENT.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s violation of a civil contempt order was properly admitted in defendant’s grand larceny trial to show larcenous intent:

The … order directed defendant’s businesses to turn over all monies they had received as a result of defendant diverting credit card proceeds from Webster Hospitality Development LLC (WHD), a company in which defendant held majority ownership and which was in receivership, to undisclosed bank accounts maintained for defendant’s businesses. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the contempt order does not constitute a finding that defendant stole the money; rather, it demonstrates that defendant’s businesses failed to abide by the earlier order to return money to WHD and to provide certain documentation to the receiver. We thus conclude that the contempt order was properly admitted as relevant evidence of defendant’s intent to deprive WHD of the money by “withhold[ing] it or caus[ing] it to be withheld from [WHD] permanently” (§ 155.00 [3]; see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293). Moreover, we note that “[l]arcenous intent . . . is rarely susceptible of proof by direct evidence, and must usually be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s actions’ ” … . Here, the contempt order had significant probative value inasmuch as it showed that defendant’s conduct did not merely constitute poor financial management but, rather, that defendant, through his businesses, intended to deprive WHD of the diverted money permanently. The court therefore properly concluded that “the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect” … . People v Frumusa, 2015 NY Slip Op 09718, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER RELEVANT TO INTENT IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER RELEVANT TO INTENT IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL)/PRIOR CRIMES AND BAD ACTS (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER RELEVANT TO INTENT IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL)/MOLINEUX EVIDENCE  (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER RELEVANT TO INTENT IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL)

,

JUDGE’S RESPONSE TO JURY NOTE ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF ACTIONS NOT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department determined the trial judge’s response to a jury note allowed the jury to consider evidence of actions not charged in the indictment. Defendant’s conviction for endangering the welfare of a child was therefore reversed and the indictment was dismissed:

As set forth in the indictment and bill of particulars, as well as pursuant to the People’s theory at trial, the endangerment charge was based on the conduct alleged in the preceding six counts of rape in the second degree and incest in the second degree, of which defendant was acquitted. After receiving a jury note during deliberations, the court instructed the jurors that they were not precluded from considering conduct other than the alleged rape and incest when considering the endangerment charge. That instruction allowed the jury to consider conduct not charged in the indictment. ” Because the jury may have convicted defendant of . . . act[s] . . . for which he was not indicted, defendant’s right to have charges preferred by the [g]rand [j]ury rather than the prosecutor at trial was violated’ ” … . Additionally, based on the vague nature of the court’s instruction, “[i]t is impossible to ascertain what alleged act of [endangerment] was found by the jury to have occurred, whether it was one . . . for which he was indicted, or indeed whether different jurors convicted defendant based on different acts” … . People v Utley, 2015 NY Slip Op 09749, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF ACTIONS NOT CHARGED IN INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED)/EVIDENCE (JURY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF ACTIONS NOT CHARGED IN INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED)

, ,

PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION (CONVICTION NOT REVERSED HOWEVER); INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO SUPPORT ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION.

The Fourth Department admonished the prosecutor for improper remarks in summation, but did not reverse the conviction. The court found the evidence of “physical injury” insufficient to support the Assault 3rd conviction and reversed that unpreserved error under a “weight of the evidence” analysis:

Despite this Court’s repeated admonitions to prosecutors not to engage in misconduct during summation, the prosecutor improperly referred to facts not in evidence when he insinuated that the victim regretted that she did not get out of defendant’s vehicle … . The prosecutor also improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy and bolstered the victim’s credibility, and did so repeatedly, by commenting on how difficult it was for her to recount her ordeal, first to the police, then before the grand jury, and finally in her trial testimony … . In addition, the prosecutor improperly suggested that the jury experiment on themselves to see how quickly bite marks fade … . Nevertheless, “[a]lthough we do not condone the prosecutor’s conduct, it cannot be said here that it caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he has been denied due process of law’ ” … . We admonish the prosecutor, however, “and remind him that prosecutors have special responsibilities . . . to safeguard the integrity of criminal proceedings and fairness in the criminal process’ ” … . * * *

We conclude, upon our independent review of the evidence, that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim sustained a physical injury … . The indictment alleged that defendant caused physical injury to the victim “by striking her in the face.” Although the victim testified that defendant struck her in the face, and photographs of the victim showed swelling and discoloration of the left side of her face, the victim did not testify that she suffered substantial pain from that injury or that she sought medical attention for it … . People v Gibson, 2015 NY Slip Op 09722, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION)/CRIMINAL LAW (ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION)/EVIDENCE (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY RE: ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION)/ASSAULT 3RD (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY)

, ,

STATEMENT MADE AFTER UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial after concluding defendant’s statements to police should have been suppressed. After defendant told police she needed to talk to a lawyer, the police questioned her further during a “smoke break:”

After answering questions for approximately an hour and ten minutes, defendant said, “I think I need to talk to an attorney.” In response, the first investigator stated, “Would you like to talk to one? If you think that, that’s fine. That’s up to you.” Defendant replied, “I need to,” before going on to state that she would never have bad feelings toward the boy and genuinely cared about him. The questioning then ceased, and the first investigator allowed defendant to go outside with the second investigator and a female Child Protective Services worker to smoke a cigarette.

While defendant was smoking in the parking garage, the second investigator engaged her in a lengthy conversation. Unbeknownst to defendant, the conversation was being digitally recorded by the second investigator. During the conversation, defendant made numerous admissions, all but confessing that she had engaged in sexual activity with the boy. * * *

… [W]e conclude that, although defendant’s statement “I think I need to talk to an attorney” may not, standing alone, constitute an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel … , her subsequent statement “I need to”—made in reply to the first investigator stating “Would you like to talk to one? If you think that, that’s fine. That’s up to you”—removed any ambiguity and made clear that defendant was requesting the assistance of counsel … . People v Kennard, 2015 NY Slip Op 09729, 4th Dept 12-31-15

 

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