You are here: / Evidence
,

In a Sexual Abuse Proceeding—Effects of Victim’s Exercise of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Exclusion of Appellant During Testimony of Victim Explained

In a sexual abuse case, the Second Department affirmed Family Court’s finding of abuse and noted the effect of Judith C.Z.’s exercise of her privilege against self-incrimination and the effect of the appellant’s exclusion from the courtroom during the testimony Judith C. Z.:

The failure of [a witness] to testify does not permit the trier of fact to speculate about what his [or her] testimony might have been nor does it require an adverse inference. It does, however, allow the trier of fact to draw the strongest inference against him [or her] that the opposing evidence in the record permits” … . Under the circumstances presented here, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s refusal to draw the negative inference urged by the appellant … .

The appellant’s further contention that the Family Court erred in excluding him from the courtroom during the testimony of Judith C. Z. is without merit. The Family Court reasonably concluded that Judith C. Z. would suffer emotional trauma if compelled to testify in front of the appellant …, and, after properly weighing the respective rights and interests of the parties, thereafter providently exercised its discretion in permitting her to testify via a two-way closed-circuit television set-up. “Because the appellant’s attorney was present during the child’s testimony and cross-examined her on the appellant’s behalf, neither the appellant’s due process right nor his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated by his exclusion from the courtroom during the child’s testimony” … .  Matter of Michael U…, 2013 NY Slip Op 06583, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

,

No Element of Intent in Constructive Possession of Contraband

The First Department determined there was no “intent” element to the constructive possession of contraband.  The marijuana and stun gun at issue were in an apartment defendant shared with his aunt and nephew. The defendant argued that, even if he was fully aware the items were in the apartment, the People were required to prove that he intended to exercise dominion and control over them.  The court wrote:

In defendant’s view, even if he was fully aware that there was contraband in the apartment he shared with his aunt and nephew, and even if he had unfettered control over the areas where the contraband was located, he was not guilty of possessing it since he merely tolerated his drug-dealing nephew’s use of the apartment as a repository for the contraband and had nothing else to do with it. We disagree.

There is no element of intent in constructive possession. A long line of authority makes clear that knowing constructive possession of tangible property is established where the People prove knowledge that the property is present and “a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband [was] found” … People v Rodriguez, 2013 NY Slip Op 06495, 1st Dept 10-8-13

 

,

Suppression Motion Should Have Been Granted—Defendant Arrested Before Police Had Probable Cause

The Fourth Department reversed the suppression court and granted defendant’s motion to suppress and dismissed the indictment. The Fourth Department concluded that the evidence of which the police were aware at the time defendant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police care did not amount to probable cause.  A baggie containing drugs and a dagger were not found until after the illegal arrest:

…[T]he police were justified in approaching the vehicle outside the bar because they had a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” rendering the police encounter lawful at its inception … . We further conclude that the police were justified in pursuing the vehicle inasmuch as “defendant’s flight in response to an approach by the police, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that [he] may be engaged in criminal activity, [gave] rise to reasonable suspicion, the necessary predicate for police pursuit” … .  Such reasonable suspicion also gave the police the authority to stop the vehicle … .

…[W]e conclude that an arrest occurred here when defendant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car.  Under such circumstances, “a reasonable man innocent of any crime, would have thought” that he was under arrest … .  “[V]arious factors, when combined with the street exchange of a ‘telltale sign’ of narcotics, may give rise to probable cause that a narcotics offense has occurred.  Those factors relevant to assessing probable cause include the exchange of currency; whether the particular community has a high incidence of drug trafficking; the police officer’s experience and training in drug investigations; and any ‘additional evidence of furtive or evasive behavior on the part of the participants’ ” … .  Here, the police observed neither a “ ‘telltale sign’ ” of narcotics, such as a glassine baggie, nor the exchange of currency … .  Thus, despite the observations of the police outside the bar, their experience in drug investigations, and defendant’s flight, we conclude that the police did not have probable cause to arrest defendant before the dagger and first baggie were observed. People v Lee, 1005, 4th Dept 10-4-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION

,

Case Sent Back to Suppression Court for Hearing to Determine Admissibility of Statements

The Fourth Department sent the case back to the suppression court for a hearing to determine the admissibility of statements that had not been included in the initial 710.30 notice provided in connection with a prior indictment that had been dismissed. The statements were included in the 710.30 notice provided in connection with the superseding indictment. The Fourth Department determined the defendant was entitled to a hearing on the admissibility of the statements:

…[W]e conclude that the court properly refused to preclude the additional statements included in the CPL 710.30 notice served by the People after the superseding indictment was filed … .  “Those [statements] were not referenced in the CPL 710.30 notice that was served in connection with the original indictment, but the record establishes that the People filed the superseding indictment out of necessity after the court dismissed . . . the original indictment” … .  We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in determining the admissibility of the additional statements without reopening the Huntley hearing and affording defendant a further opportunity to contest their admissibility.  The court concluded that the statements were spontaneously made and therefore not subject to suppression.  At the time of the Huntley hearing conducted in conjunction with the initial indictment, however, the only issue before the court with respect to the additional statements was whether they should be precluded on the ground that they had not been included in the first CPL 710.30 notice.  Consequently, inasmuch as the voluntariness of the additional statements was not at issue at that time, defendant had no reason or opportunity to explore the issues of spontaneity or the effect of the previously-given Miranda warnings, or to raise any other issues regarding the admissibility of those statements.  Thus, “the hearing must be reopened” to afford him that opportunity… . People v Roberts, 945, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

,

Case Sent Back to Suppression Court to Determine Whether Police Had Sufficient Reason for Asking About Drugs and Weapons After Traffic Stop

The Fourth Department sent the case back for a determination whether the police had a founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify an inquiry about the presence of drugs of weapons after a traffic stop:

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the gun recovered from the vehicle based upon the inevitable discovery doctrine.  The testimony at the suppression hearing established that, during a lawful traffic stop, one of the police officers asked defendant whether there were any drugs or weapons in the vehicle before instructing defendant to exit the vehicle.  After defendant admitted to having marihuana on his person, the police officer asked defendant to exit the vehicle and, following suspicious behavior by another occupant of the vehicle, searched the vehicle and found a gun in plain view.  Notably, the court did not address whether the officer had the requisite founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify an inquiry concerning the presence of drugs or weapons in the vehicle … . Instead, the court refused to suppress the gun on the ground that the police “could” have taken various actions after the traffic stop that would have inevitably led to the discovery of the gun.  The People, – however, did not raise the inevitable discovery doctrine as a ground for denying suppression of the gun, nor did they meet their burden of “demonstrat[ing] a very high degree of probability that normal police procedures would have uncovered the challenged evidence independently of [a] tainted source”… . People v Sykes, 849, 4th Dept 10-4-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION

,

Erroneous Molineux Rulings Required Reversal

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding error in the trial court’s ruling evidence of prior bad acts was admissible:

Before the trial, the court granted the People’s motion to present Molineux evidence for the limited purpose of proving the absence of mistake in defendant’s possession of the forged checks (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293-294).  Pursuant to the court’s ruling, the People presented evidence on their direct case concerning three of defendant’s prior convictions as well as one investigation that did not result in criminal charges, arising from defendant’s conduct in writing checks on his accounts with knowledge that those accounts either were closed or had insufficient funds.  The court erred in ruling that such evidence was relevant to establish the absence of mistake.  The disputed issues at trial were whether defendant knew that the checks were forged and whether defendant was a knowing participant in, or an innocent victim of, a fraudulent check scheme.  Defendant’s prior bad acts were not “directly relevant” to the absence of mistake in defendant’s possession of the forged checks because those prior bad acts are not probative of defendant’s ability to recognize that the checks were forgeries or that he had become knowingly involved in a fraudulent check scheme … .  Contrary to the People’s contention, the Molineux evidence was not admissible to prove defendant’s “familiarity with check frauds and his ability to deceive individuals through banking schemes” inasmuch as such evidence “tends only to demonstrate the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged” .. .  Furthermore, the Court of Appeals has expressly declined to create a “ ‘specialized crime’ exception to Molineux” when the charged crime is one “that require[s] unusual skills, knowledge and access to the means of committing it” … .  We therefore conclude that evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts was inadmissible as a matter of law … .

We further conclude in any event with respect to the court’s Molineux ruling that the probative value of the evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect … .  The evidence was “of slight value when compared to the possible prejudice to [defendant]” and therefore should not have been admitted … .  We further conclude that the error in admitting the evidence is not harmless …, even in view of the court’s limiting instruction.  People v Mhina, 871, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

,

Mode of Proceedings Error Re: Jury Note Required Reversal, Molineux Rulings Flawed

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction finding the trial court committed a mode of proceedings error in responding to a jury note. The judge instructed the jury in the jury room outside the presence of the defendant.  In addition, the Fourth Department found fault with the procedure used by the trial court to address the admission into evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts, as well as some of the rulings that such evidence was admissible:

We agree with defendant that County Court committed a mode of proceedings error when it responded to a jury note off the record, in the jury room, and outside the presence of defendant, with no indication that defendant had waived his right to be present.  CPL 310.30 provides that, upon receiving a request for further instruction or information from the jury during deliberations, “the court must direct that the jury be returned to the courtroom and, after notice to both the people and counsel for the defendant, and in the presence of the defendant, must give such requested information or instruction as the court deems proper.”  It is beyond cavil that “[a] defendant has a fundamental right to be present at all material stages of a trial . . . [and] CPL 310.30 makes a defendant’s right to be present during instructions to the jury absolute and unequivocal” … .  The court properly read the jury note on the record in the presence of defendant, defense counsel, and the prosecutor, and it then obtained a clear stipulation from both attorneys concerning the accuracy of its intended response to the jury’s request for information.  We nevertheless conclude that the court committed reversible error by subsequently instructing the jury off the record, in the jury room, and outside the presence of defendant (see CPL 310.30…).

Because there must be a retrial, we deem it appropriate to address defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion by permitting testimony concerning defendant’s prior bad acts in the days, months, and years preceding the subject arson.  “[A] defendant is not entitled as a matter of law to pretrial notice of the People’s intention to offer evidence pursuant to People v Molineux (168 NY 264) or to a pretrial hearing on the admissibility of such evidence” ….  Nevertheless, “a prosecutor seeking to introduce Molineux evidence ‘should ask for a ruling out of the presence of the jury’ . . . and . . . any hearing with respect to the admissibility of such evidence should occur either before trial or, at the latest, ‘just before the witness testifies’ ” … .

Here, that procedure was not followed.  Instead, the court improperly afforded defense counsel a standing objection with respect to testimony concerning defendant’s prior bad acts while affording the prosecutor the opportunity to ask one of the victims of the arson, who was defendant’s neighbor, about defendant’s prior bad acts over a period as long as 10 years before the arson.  It was particularly improper to allow that witness to testify that, as a result of defendant’s prior bad acts, he had concerns about the safety of his children and pets.  “It is fundamental that evidence concerning a defendant’s uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime charged” … .  Although defendant’s bad acts within a few days of the arson could be deemed relevant to such issues as motive and intent, testimony concerning defendant’s bad acts in the preceding weeks, months or years was irrelevant to any issue in the case and only could have prejudiced defendant by suggesting to the jury that he was an erratic and potentially dangerous person who had the propensity to commit the crime at issue … . People v Cornell, 870, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

, ,

Malpractice Action Against Pharmacy Dismissed; Applicable Standard of Care and Insufficiency of Expert Affidavit Explained

In affirming the dismissal of a malpractice complaint against a pharmacy (Rite Aid) for failure to state a cause of action, the Fourth Department explained the standard of care imposed upon a pharmacy and the necessary contents of an expert affidavit alleging the profession has established a different standard of care:

With respect to the sufficiency of the complaint before us, we note that in New York “ ‘[t]he standard of care which is imposed on a pharmacist is generally described as ordinary care in the conduct of his [or her] business.  The rule of ordinary care as applied to the business of a druggist means the highest practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness and vigilance commensurate with the dangers involved and the consequences which may attend inattention’ ” … .  “Generally, a pharmacist cannot be held liable for negligence in the absence of an allegation that he or she failed to fill a prescription precisely as directed by the physician or was aware that the customer had a condition that would render the prescription of the drug at issue contraindicated” … .  Here, because plaintiff failed to allege that the dosage “fell below or exceeded the medically acceptable range of dosages that should be provided under any circumstance” …, that Rite Aid did not follow the prescribing physician’s directions, or that Rite Aid was aware that the drug was contraindicated for plaintiff, the court properly concluded that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for negligence on the part of Rite Aid … .

Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, she failed to establish through an expert’s affidavit that the pharmacy profession itself has created a different standard of care from that set forth herein.  In support of that contention, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a pharmacist who opined that “[t]he dose [of prednisone prescribed for plaintiff] triggers the need to contact the prescribing physician to double check the dosage and to notify the patient of the very high dose and risks associated with that dose.”  “ ‘[O]rdinarily, the opinion of a qualified expert that a plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standards would’ [be sufficient to allege a violation of a professional standard of care] .

. . Where the expert’s ultimate assertions are speculative or unsupported by any evidentiary foundation, however, the opinion should be given no probative force and is insufficient to” establish a violation of a standard of care … . Thus, an expert’s affidavit is insufficient to establish that a standard of care exists where it is “devoid of any reference to a foundational scientific basis for its conclusions” … .  Here, the expert cites no industry standard, treatise or other authority in support of his opinion regarding the standard of care …, and plaintiff therefore failed to establish that the pharmacy profession itself imposes a different standard of care from that set forth in the applicable case law. Burton v Sciano, et al, 837, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

,

Checkpoint Vehicle Stop Illegal

The First Department determined a vehicle checkpoint stop to control automobile thefts was unconstitutional:

The suspicionless vehicle checkpoint stop that led to the recovery of contraband in this case was constitutionally impermissible because the primary purpose of the checkpoint was “essentially to serve the governmental interest in general crime control” … . It is undisputed that the primary purpose of the checkpoint was to deter or control auto theft. Contrary to the People’s assertions, the interest in “controlling automobile thefts,” as described in this case, “is not distinguishable from the general interest in crime control” … . Under the applicable precedents, a secondary goal of promoting highway safety does not justify a checkpoint stop. People v Velez. 2013 NY Slip Op 06437, 1st Dept, 10-3-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION, SEARCH AND SEIZURE

,

Police Violated Defendant’s Constitutional Rights by Pushing Door Open and Entering Apartment When Defendant Answered the Door—The “Payton” Violation (a Warrantless Arrest Inside Home) Mandated Suppression of Defendant’s Statement

Over a two-justice dissent, the Second Department determined defendant was arrested pursuant to a Payton violation (a warrantless arrest inside defendant’s home) and his subsequent statement should have been suppressed. The police were at defendant’s door with the complainant who told the police defendant had assaulted her.  When defendant opened the door, the complainant identified him as the assailant.  The defendant tried to shut the door, but the police pushed their way in and arrested him. The trial court felt there was no Payton violation the defendant’s attempt to shut the door after the identification was akin to “fleeing” or “exigent circumstances.”  The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Balkin, disagreed and wrote:

In Payton v New York (445 US 573), the United States Supreme Court announced a clear and easily applied rule with respect to warrantless arrests in the home: “the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant” (Payton v New York, 445 US at 590). The rule under the New York Constitution is the same (see NY Const, art 1, § 12; People v Levan, 62 NY2d 139, 144). Payton and Levan require suppression of the defendant’s statement under the clear, undisputed facts of this case.

Certainly, if the defendant’s encounter with the police had begun outside his home, or even on the threshold of it, the defendant could not have avoided arrest by fleeing into his home (see United States v Santana, 427 US 38, 43). But, contrary to the hearing court’s characterization, the defendant’s attempt to close his door was not “akin” to “fleeing”; he had never left the constitutionally protected interior of his home in the first place, even partially, so he did not flee “into” his home … . People v Gonzales, 2013 NY Slip Op 06381, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

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