You are here: / Evidence
,

Evidence of a Prior Crime Not Admissible to Prove Intent and Not Admissible As Part of a Common Scheme or Plan/Conviction Reversed

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a dissent, determined the admission of evidence of an uncharged crime to demonstrate defendant’s intent required reversal because (1) the proof was not ambiguous about defendant’s intent, and (2) the prior crime was not so similar to the charged crime that it proved the existence of a common scheme or plan.  Defendant was charged with theft of a ring from a man named Cushman.  Extensive proof that defendant had previously stolen jewelry from another person was allowed:

Where intent is at issue but cannot be readily inferred from the commission of the act itself, evidence of prior criminal acts may be used to establish it … . Where, however, proof of the act demonstrates that the defendant acted with the requisite state of mind, Molineux evidence should not be admitted … . Here, proof of defendant’s actions is sufficient to demonstrate that he acted with the requisite intent. Spraying someone in the face with mace, grabbing the person’s ring and running can only indicate an intent to steal the ring. If the jury believed Cushman’s testimony, then it would have to infer that defendant intended to steal the ring from him.   * * *

Nor was [the prior crime evidence] admissible under the common plan or scheme exception, which requires that “there exist[] a single inseparable plan encompassing both the charged and the uncharged crimes” … . “There must be such a concurrence of common features that the various acts are naturally to be explained as caused by a general plan of which they are the individual manifestations'” …. Indeed, the Court of Appeals noted that “courts have been particularly cautious in permitting proof of uncharged criminal acts to establish a common scheme or plan” … . Evidence that is merely indicative of a modus operandi is not sufficient. “[A] modus operandi alone is not a common scheme; it is only a repetitive pattern” … . What is generally required is evidence of “uncharged crimes committed in order to effect the primary crime for which the accused has been indicted” … . People v DeGerolamo, 2014 NY Slip Op 02698, 1st Dept 4-17-14

 

, ,

Defendant’s Statement that He Was Thinking About Talking to an Attorney, Coupled With the Officer’s Interpretation of that Statement as a Request for Counsel, Rendered Invalid Defendant’s Subsequent Agreement to Speak with the Officer without an Attorney Present

The Third Department determined that stopping the defendant, asking him questions, patting him down, and searching a nearby vehicle (in which a loaded firearm was found) were supported by what the officer was told by persons who had just flagged down the officer.  The officer (Van Allen) was told the defendant had threatened one of the persons who flagged him down with a weapon and the defendant had been driving the van that was subjected to the warrantless search.  Subsequently, the defendant told the officer “I am thinking of talking to an attorney,” after which the office stopped questioning him.  Later, when the defendant told the officer he wished to speak with him, and the officer asked if he was willing to answer questions without an attorney present, the defendant said “yes.”  The Third Department determined, in part because the officer interpreted defendant’s statement that he was thinking about talking to an attorney as a request for an attorney, the defendant’s subsequent statement should have been suppressed:

Phrases such as “I think” or “maybe” do not necessarily establish that a request for counsel is uncertain or equivocal … . The relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable police officer would have understood the statement in question as a request for an attorney … . Although this is an objective standard, the fact that an officer did, in fact, treat a defendant’s request as an assertion of the right to counsel is properly taken into account in assessing what a reasonable police officer would have believed … . Here, despite the allegedly sarcastic tone of defendant’s initial statement, VanAllen indicated that he understood it as a request for counsel by promptly ceasing his inquiries. Further, when VanAllen later twice asked whether he had requested counsel, defendant confirmed without any equivocation that he had. Under these circumstances, a reasonable police officer would have understood that defendant had asserted his right to counsel … . Accordingly, defendant’s alleged waiver was ineffective, and his statements following the initial request should have been suppressed. People v Jemmott, 2014 NY Slip Op 02630, 3rd Dept 4-17-14

 

, ,

Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Raised Question of Fact About Whether Anesthesiologist, Who Was Alone With the Unconscious Decedent at the Time of Death, Was Negligent

The Third Department noted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur raised a question of fact about whether an anesthesiologist (Waid) was negligent:

…[P]laintiff submitted a detailed expert affidavit … . The expert opined that Waid, through overinflation or improper insertion of the endotracheal tube, caused the hemorrhage that immediately led to decedent’s death. Although the exact source of bleeding was never identified, the expert explained possible ways that Waid may have caused the hemorrhage and stated that such bleeding does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, Waid had exclusive control over decedent’s body and the medical instrumentalities at the time, and decedent was unconscious so he could not have contributed to the situation. Therefore, questions of fact exist and plaintiff may rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to attempt to establish Waid’s negligence… .  Cole v Champlain Val Physicians’ Hosp Med Ctr, 2014 NY Slip Op 02654, 3rd Dept 4-17-14

 

,

Expert Opinion About Link Between Trauma and a Stroke Erroneously Precluded/Frye Hearing Erroneously Ordered/The Opinion Evidence Was Not Controversial and Was Sufficiently Supported by the Relevant Literature to Obviate the Need for a Frye Hearing

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, with a concurring and a dissenting opinion, found that the trial court erred in precluding plaintiff’s experts from testifying about a causal link between an automobile accident and a subsequent embolic stroke.  The First Department further concluded that the opinion testimony about the causal link was supported by enough relevant literature to obviate the need for the Frye hearing which was (erroneously) ordered by the trial court.  The First Department went on to criticize the defense’s submission of motions in limine on the eve of trial, which, when erroneously granted, led to the plaintiff’s inability to make a prima facie case.  With respect to the criteria for a Frye hearing, the court wrote:

We reject the trial court’s determination that a Frye hearing was necessary. In the first place, defendants’ moving papers failed to justify the need for a Frye hearing at all. The affidavit by defendants’ expert in support of the motion merely asserted that the expert had “conducted a search of the relevant medical literature” and had found no support for plaintiff’s theory that the trauma from a motor vehicle collision caused the embolic stroke. Notably, defendants’ expert did not even point to literature or studies disproving such a link. Therefore, when, in response, plaintiff’s expert provided proof that literature supporting the theory existed and had been published in reputable professional journals and cited or discussed in others, the basis for defendants’ claim was negated; no factual issue was presented. At that point, it was up to the jury to decide whether to accept the assertion that the physical impact experienced by plaintiff in this accident was a competent producing cause of the embolic stroke.

Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, the opinion of plaintiff’s expert that the impact of the collision was a competent producing cause of the dislodgement of a clot, resulting in his stroke, is not the type of novel theory of causation that necessitates a Frye hearing; it was merely an opinion explaining the physiological process that caused the stroke plaintiff suffered.

Even assuming that the assertion by defendants’ expert warranted an evidentiary hearing to assess the reliability of plaintiff’s expert’s causation claims, the evidence presented at the Frye hearing sufficiently established the reliability of those claims.

Frye hearings are used “to determine whether the experts’ deductions are based on principles that are sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance as reliable” … . The test is particularly useful for newly minted or experimental processes or newly posited psychological theories, in order to weed out baseless and unreliable theories; a Frye hearing “should be held only if the basis for the expert’s conclusion is novel” … . “[W]here the proposed expert testimony concerns a claim that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the actions taken by the defendants, the whole concept of the Frye analysis is of limited applicability” ….

As the [2nd] Department observed in Zito v Zabarsky (28 AD3d 42, 44…), “general acceptance does not necessarily mean that a majority of the scientists involved subscribe to the conclusion. Rather it means that those espousing the theory or opinion have followed generally accepted scientific principles and methodology in evaluating clinical data to reach their conclusions.” There is no need here for the consensus the dissent claims is necessary. Sadek v Wesley, 2014 NY Slip Op 02551, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

,

Intent Must Exist Simultaneously with the Act/Accidental Discharge of a Firearm, Even Where the Shooter Intends to Assault the Victim, Does Not Constitute Intentional Assault/Loss of Police Officer’s Handwritten Notes Did Not Mandate Adverse Inference Jury Charge—Insufficient Showing of Prejudice

The First Department determined the trial court did not give the right response to a question from the jury and reversed the intentional assault conviction.  The jury asked whether a person who intends to commit assault is guilty of intentional assault if the gun goes off accidentally.  The trial court answered “yes.”  The First Department determined the answer should have been “no” because the intent must be simultaneous with the act.  The First Department further determined that the loss of the police officer’s handwritten notes was a Brady/Rosario violation, but the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice flowing from the loss:

We agree with defendant that the court’s response erroneously allowed the jury to find defendant guilty of intentional assault without finding that the intent element of that crime existed beyond a reasonable doubt. “It is a well-established rule of law that the intent to commit a crime must be present at the time the criminal act takes place” … . The intent element is not satisfied if, as in the jury’s hypothetical, the individual does not intend to pull the trigger at the moment the gun discharges. While those facts might have supported liability for a crime requiring a lesser mens rea than acting intentionally, defendant here was not charged with such a crime. Because the court’s response to the jury’s note incorrectly signaled that an accidental firing of the gun could support a conviction for intentional assault, the conviction on that count must be reversed. People v Lee, 2014 NY Slip Op 02507, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

,

Automobile Exception to Warrant Requirement Applied

The Third Department determined the police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the glove box of defendant’s car based upon information provided by a confidential informant:

…[T]here was probable cause for the search of the vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a search of a vehicle where there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found inside … . Following defendant’s arrest, the information furnished by the confidential informant provided the police with probable cause to believe that there was a large quantity of ecstasy in the glove box. Inasmuch as the police were authorized to conduct a warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle, County Court properly denied his suppression motion. People v Portelli, 2014 NY Slip Op 02467, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

,

No Justification for Handcuffing Defendant/Handcuffing Constituted an Arrest Before Officer Had Probable Cause to Arrest

The First Department determined probable cause for defendant’s arrest did not exist when defendant was handcuffed and the act of handcuffing constituted an arrest, not a detention pending information providing probable cause:

During a buy and bust operation, a ghost undercover detective issued a radio transmission identifying defendant as a participant in a drug sale, made to another undercover officer. Based on that radio transmission describing defendant and his location, a third officer approached defendant on the sidewalk, identified himself, and asked defendant to put his hands up. When defendant acted “a little resistant,” the officer attempted to handcuff him. Defendant then resisted, and the police forcibly handcuffed him.

The suppression court [ruled] that although when the officer stopped the defendant, he did not have probable cause to arrest him based on the information that he had received from the radio transmission, the officer obtained probable cause to arrest defendant after the purchasing undercover officer subsequently radioed his confirmatory identification. …[By] finding that there was no probable cause to arrest defendant until the confirmatory identification, the court implicitly found that the initial apprehension, which preceded that identification, was a proper temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion and that the application of handcuffs on defendant did not transform the detention into a full-scale arrest.

…[W]e reject the People’s argument that defendant was not under arrest at the point when he was handcuffed. Although the use of handcuffs is not dispositive of whether an investigatory detention on reasonable suspicion has been elevated to an arrest, handcuffing is permissible in such a detention only when justified by the circumstances … . In this case, the police had no reason to believe that defendant was either armed or dangerous. Nor was there any indication on the record that defendant offered any resistance prior to the handcuffing, or gave the police any reason to believe that he might flee. People v Blanding, 2014 NY Slip Op 02508, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

, ,

Children’s Out-Of-Court Statements May Corroborate One Another

The Second Department noted that out-of-court statements by children can corroborate one another in a sexual abuse case:

The Family Court’s determination that the maternal stepgrandfather sexually abused the subject children was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[e], [g]; 1046[b][i]…).  “It is well established that the out-of-court statements of siblings may properly be used to cross-corroborate one another” … . Here, the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing established that, in May 2011, then-10-year-old Naziya D. and 3-year-old Jada A. made independent and consistent out-of-court statements to several individuals describing similar incidents of sexual abuse by the maternal stepgrandfather. Further, the children’s statements were corroborated by the petitioner’s progress notes and the mother’s testimony as to the children’s statements … .Additionally, where, as here, the Family Court is primarily confronted with issues of credibility, its findings must be accorded deference on appeal, as they were supported by the record … .The Family Court, upon a finding of abuse pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012(e), must make a further finding of the specific sex offenses that were committed, as defined in Penal Law article 130 … .  Even if the Family Court fails to make such a finding, this Court can make the finding that the Family Court should have made… . Matter of Jada A, 2014 Slip Op 02430, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

,

Dismissal of Indictment On Ground that Law Enforcement Personnel Improperly Issued a Subpoena for Defendant’s Financial Records Reversed/Defendant Did Not Have Standing to Challenge the Subpoena and Issuance of the Subpoena Did Not Violate Defendant’s Constitutional Rights

The Second Department determined that the trial court should not have dismissed an indictment in the interest of justice on the ground that law enforcement personnel improperly issued a subpoena to Citibank for defendant’s financial records.  The court noted that defendant did not have standing to challenge the subpoena because he did not have a proprietary interest in the records:

Even assuming, arguendo, that the subpoena was improperly issued, the defendant had no standing to challenge the validity of the subpoena … as he had no possessory or proprietary interest in the bank’s records … . Further, any impropriety in the issuance of the subpoena did not implicate the defendant’s constitutional rights … or federal statutory rights … . Since any misconduct on the part of law enforcement in issuing the subpoena did not implicate the defendant’s rights or interests, justice did not require dismissal of the subject counts of the indictment on the basis of any such misconduct. Further, for the reasons noted above, suppression of the Citibank records was not proper either as a sanction for alleged misconduct or for an alleged violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights… . People v Adeniran, 2014 NY Slip Op 02302, 2nd Dept 4-2-14

 

,

No Probable Cause for Disorderly Conduct Arrest/Defendant Was Standing in Front of a Store with Three Others All of Whom Refused Police Officer’s Request to Move

The Court of Appeals determined the presence of three reputed gang members in front of a store, one of whom was partially blocking the door, was not enough to support a disorderly conduct charge.  Evidence seized as a result of arrest should therefore have been suppressed:

The applicable statute is Penal Law § 240.20 (6), which says:”A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:. . . .”6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;”

We have made clear that evidence of actual or threatened public harm (“inconvenience, annoyance or alarm”) is a necessary element of a valid disorderly conduct charge … . Here, the evidence was insufficient to provide the arresting officer with probable cause to believe that defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or was reckless in creating a risk of those consequences. According to the officer’s testimony at the suppression hearing, defendant stood with three other young men, reputed to be gang members, on a street corner, and the four refused to move when asked to do so by the police. The only evidence of any possible impact on the public resulting from their presence was the officer’s testimony that one of defendant’s companions “was partially blocking” the entrance to a store by standing in front of it.  Defendant and the other two men were close to the door, but not in front of it. There is no evidence that anyone trying to enter or leave the store was actually obstructed. This was not sufficient to satisfy the public harm element of the statute.  People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 02217, CtApp 4-1-14

 

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