You are here: / Evidence
, ,

AFTER TWO MENTIONS OF THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR AN ATTORNEY WHICH DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST, THE DEFENDANT STATED “THAT’S WHAT I WANT A LAWYER FOR,” HE WAS “SCARED TO TALK,” AND HE “COULD STILL COOPERATE LATER;” THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE POLICE AS A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined statements made by defendant after he invoked his right to counsel should have been suppressed:

In the course of the investigators’ questioning of defendant, they transitioned away from asking defendant about his flight from the police and turned to the underlying domestic violence incident. When they began focusing on how he had first encountered the victim earlier that morning, defendant expressed that he did not wish to discuss that subject. After the investigators continued with a couple of follow-up questions on this topic, defendant stated, “that’s what I want a lawyer for.” He then went on to say that he was scared to talk and noted that he could still cooperate with the District Attorney at a later time.

… [We conclude that defendant clearly invoked his right to counsel. Although the first two alleged invocations … did not constitute requests for an attorney, they nevertheless serve to indicate that the subject of obtaining a lawyer was on defendant’s mind while he was being questioned. … [O]nce the interrogation moved to the underlying incident, defendant “articulated his desire to have counsel present such that a reasonable police officer should have understood that he was requesting an attorney” … . Accordingly, any statements made by defendant thereafter should have been suppressed … . People v Lipka, 2024 NY Slip Op 05153, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s statements “that’s what I want a lawyer for,” he was “scared to talk,” and he “could still cooperate later” constituted an unequivocal request for counsel. Statements made thereafter should have been suppressed.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INTOXICATION JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the denial of defendant’s request for the intoxication jury instruction was reversible error:

… County Court improperly refused to instruct the jury as to the defense of intoxication. “An intoxication charge is warranted if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis” … . The charge should be given when there is “evidence of the recent use of intoxicants of such nature or quantity to support the inference that their ingestion was sufficient to affect defendant’s ability to form the necessary criminal intent” … . It is true that more is required than “a bare assertion by a defendant that he was intoxicated,” but the threshold to demonstrate entitlement to the charge is nevertheless “relatively low” … . We find that the evidence presented at trial regarding defendant’s consumption of alcohol during the afternoon and evening on the date in question easily surpassed this low bar. People v Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 05158, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: The evidence of defendant’s consumption of alcohol was more than sufficient to warrant instructing the jury on the intoxication defense.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the denial of defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction was reversible error:

As held by the Court of Appeals in People v Boone (30 NY3d 521 [2017]), “when identification is an issue in a criminal case and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, upon request, a party is entitled to a charge on cross-racial identification” … . Here, at the close of proof, defendant requested that the jury be given a cross-racial identification instruction pursuant to Boone. County Court denied his request noting, among other things, that in the present case, the identifying witness … knew defendant. County Court, however, misinterpreted the Boone standard and erred in denying defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction upon defendant’s request for same … . People v Alexander, 2024 NY Slip Op 05160, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Where the witness who identifies the defendant as the perpetrator and the defendant appear to be of different races, defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction must be granted.

 

, ,

IN THIS “ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” AND “FALSIYFING BUSINESS RECORDS” PROSECUTION, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED AFTER A HEARING OF WHICH HE HAD NOTICE AND IN WHICH HE COULD HAVE PARTICIPATED; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE HIS ANSWERING “NO” TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS FALSE; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department reversed defendant’s “attempted criminal possession of a weapon” and “falsifying business records” convictions as against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, when attempting to purchase a shotgun, answered “no” to the question whether he was subject to a court order. Although restraining orders were produced by the People, there was no proof any restraining order “was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate” as required by 18 USC 922 (g) (8) (an element of the charged offenses):

… [T]he People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant attempted to buy a shotgun knowing his possession of same was “prohibited by law” (Penal Law § 265.17 [1]). People v Rock, 2024 NY Slip Op 05162, Third Dept 10-17-24

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING A COLLOQUY TO DETERMINE THE WAIVER WAS VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT; THE INFORMATION IN THE WARRANT DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have summarily denied defendant’s request to represent himself and the motion to suppress evidence retrieved from the defendant’s cell phone should have been granted:

A court may not summarily deny a defendant’s request to represent himself or herself, even if the court believes it to be in the defendant’s best interest to be represented by counsel … . Once defendant made his request, which was unequivocal and timely, County Court was required to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he was making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel … . * * *

… [T]he warrant was supported by [the investigator’s] affidavit, which stated that he believed the phones “may” contain digital data, including call histories, that would evidence the commission of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. However, the statute requires that a statement of reasonable cause based upon information and belief must also state “the sources of such information and the grounds of such belief” (CPL 690.35 [3] [c]), which was lacking here. Stated differently, even where there is probable cause to suspect the defendant of a crime, law enforcement may not search his or her cell phone unless they have information demonstrating that evidence is likely to be found there; some link sufficient to connect the two must be provided. Our review of the affidavit of probable cause in this case reveals no such link. People v Poulos, 2024 NY Slip Op 05152, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: A defendant’s request to represent himself should not be summarily denied. The judge must conduct a colloquy to ensure the waiver of the right to counsel is voluntary and intelligent.

Practice Point: Here the search warrant did not demonstrate probable cause to believe the search of defendant’s cell phone would reveal evidence of criminal possession of a controlled substance.

 

, , , ,

FAMILY COURT’S RULING THAT A MASSACHUSETTS COURT WAS THE MORE CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY MATTER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO THE STATUTORY FACTORS OR ANY TESTIMONY OR SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES; THE RECORD WAS THEREFORE INSUFFICIENT FOR APPELLATE REVIEW AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court’s ruling that a Massachusetts court was the most convenient forum for this custody matter, determined Family Court’s failure to place on the record the factors it considered in making its ruling, combined with absence of any testimony, rendered the record inadequate for review, requiring remittal:

“Where, as here, a New York court has continuing jurisdiction over a custody matter, it may decline to exercise such jurisdiction if it determines that New York is an inconvenient forum and that another state is a more appropriate forum” … . A court is obliged to consider eight statutory factors in rendering that determination, and “[t]hose statutory factors include (1) ‘whether domestic violence or mistreatment or abuse of a child or sibling has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child,’ (2) the length of time the children have resided in another state, (3) the distance between the two states in question, (4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties, (5) any agreement among the parties regarding jurisdiction, (6) the nature and location of relevant evidence, including testimony from the children, (7) the ability of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the relevant evidence, and (8) the familiarity of each court with the relevant facts and issues” (… Domestic Relations Law § 76-f [2] [a]). Notably, the “determination depends on the specific issues to be decided in the pending litigation, and must involve consideration of all relevant factors, including those set forth in the statute” … .

… Family Court did not explicitly refer to the statutory factors during its conference with the Massachusetts court, which was essentially a back-and-forth between the judges on issues that included the language of the prior custody orders, the nature of the cases presently before them and the differences between New York and Massachusetts laws governing custody proceedings. The parties were not invited to, and did not, offer any testimony regarding the relative convenience of the two forums. Matter of Mark AA. v Susan BB., 2024 NY Slip Op 05173, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Here Family Court did not make an adequate record to support its ruling that a Massachusetts court was the more convenient forum for this custody matter. There were no submissions by the parties and there was no testimony. The statutory factors were not explicitly referenced. The matter was remitted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING THE SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX DISCUSSIONS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF HIS PRIOR CONVICTIONS; THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE ANNOUNCED HIS SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX RULINGS IN THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT ENOUGH; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined defendant had a right to be present during the Sandoval/Molineux discussions concerning the admissibility of defendant’s prior convictions. The fact that the judge announced his rulings in defendant’s presence was not enough:

We reverse defendant’s conviction and grant him a new trial. The trial court held a conference in defendant’s absence on the prosecution’s motion to cross examine him on his prior criminal conduct, in violation of his right to be present (see CPL 260.20 …). The court held a subsequent hearing on the motion in defendant’s presence. However, the court did not hear arguments on the merits, did not confirm defendant’s understanding of the underlying facts or the merits of the application, and merely announced its decision. Thus, the subsequent proceeding did not provide for defendant’s meaningful participation in the determination of the merits of the motion and did not cure the earlier violation. People v Sharp, 2024 NY Slip Op 05132, CtApp 10-17-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s right to be present at trial includes the right to be present during the arguments about the admissibility of defendant’s prior convictions under Sandoval/Molineux. Defendant’s presence when the judge announced the Sandoval/Molineux rulings is not sufficient.

 

, ,

THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE THE NECESSARY BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVITS; HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY PROVE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action failed to prove it had standing to foreclose because the necessary business records were not attached to the foundational affidavits. The court noted that Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the defendants did not prove the bank did not have standing:

“Although [t]he foundation for admission of a business record usually is provided by the testimony of the custodian, the author or some other witness familiar with the practices and procedures of the particular business, it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Without the introduction of the records themselves, “a witness’s testimony as to the contents of the records is inadmissible hearsay” … .

Here, the plaintiff relied on the affidavits from Jackson and Smith to demonstrate that it had possession of the note prior to commencing this action. The defendants correctly contend that neither Jackson nor Smith attached any business records to their affidavits. Thus, the assertions of Jackson and Smith that the plaintiff had possession of the note prior to commencing this action were inadmissible hearsay and insufficient to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s standing … . Bank of N.Y. v Levy, 2024 NY Slip Op 05085, Second Dept 10-16-24

Similar failure of proof in the context of the confirmation of the referee’s report in a foreclosure proceeding, i.e., the failure to produce the business records relied upon by the affiant. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Quaranta, 2024 NY Slip Op 05090, Second Dept 10-16-24

​Practice Point: In a foreclosure proceeding, the failure to attach or produce the business records relied upon by an affiant renders the affidavit inadmissible hearsay.

Practice Point: The bank’s failure to prove it has standing to foreclose (due to the failure to attach the relevant business records to a foundational affidavit) does not entitle defendants to summary judgment on the standing issue. Defendants must affirmatively prove the bank does not have standing to warrant summary judgment in their favor.

, , , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING TO ALLOW REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court and ordering a new SORA risk-level assessment, determined defendant’s attorney’s request for an adjournment to allow review of documents relevant to a downward departure should have been granted:

… County Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied the defendant’s request for an adjournment. The defendant’s open release date two days after the hearing was not a sufficient reason to deny the defendant’s request for an adjournment (see Correction Law § 168-l[8]). Further, the documents discussed by the defendant, including documents relating to his participation in treatment programs, may be relevant to support an application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. “A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of ‘(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the . . . Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence'” … . “In making the determinations the court shall review . . . any relevant materials and evidence submitted by the sex offender” … . “An offender’s response to treatment, if exceptional, can be the basis for a downward departure” … . As the documents cited by the defendant were potentially material, the adjournment request was not made for the purposes of delay, and the necessity of the request was not due to a failure of due diligence, the court should have granted the request to adjourn the SORA hearing so that the defendant’s counsel could review the documents and determine whether they should be offered to the court as evidence at the hearing. People v Eldridge, 2024 NY Slip Op 05117, Second Dept 10-16-24

Practice Point: Here defense counsel’s request for an adjournment of the SORA risk-level proceeding to allow review of documents which may be relevant to a downward departure should have been granted. Defense counsel was not able to meet with the defendant until 15 minutes before the hearing, the request was not made to delay, and the fact that defendant had an upcoming open release date was not a sufficient reason to deny an adjournment.

 

, , ,

THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID SHOWING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY TO THE JURY, EFFECTIVELY REMOVED THE MENS REA ELEMENT OF THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CHARGES FROM THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION; CONVICTION REVERSED ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s child-pornography conviction, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the stipulation signed by defense counsel and presented to the jury (in an effort to avoid showing the pornography to the jury) effectively removed from the jury consideration of the mens rea element. Therefore, defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel:

A few days before the trial commenced, defense counsel and the prosecutor executed a stipulation entitled “Stipulation Elements of Crime.” Among other things, they stipulated to the fact that certain videos underlying the counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child “depicted . . . a performance, which included sexual conduct by a child less than 17 years of age,” and similarly stipulated as to the content of certain images underlying the counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child. …

… [T]he stipulation went on to state, in pertinent part, that “whoever possessed each of the . . . videos, promoted a performance, which included sexual conduct by a child . . . with knowledge of the character and content of the videos,” and “whoever possessed these videos and images, knowingly had in his or her possession or control, or knowingly accessed with intent to view, a performance which included sexual conduct by a child” … . A reasonable reading of this additional language in the stipulation is that possession alone is tantamount to promoting a performance with knowledge “of the character and content of” the videos, which is required to support a conviction of promoting a sexual performance by a child under Penal Law § 263.15, and that possession alone is tantamount to knowing “possession or control” or “access[ ] with intent to view,” which is required to support a conviction of possessing a sexual performance by a child under Penal Law § 263.16. Thus, this additional language in the stipulation set forth definitions of the crimes that had no mens rea element … , under which possession alone could support a guilty verdict for each crime. People v Guerra, 2024 NY Slip Op 04978, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: Defense counsel signed a stipulation in an effort to avoid showing child pornography to the jury. The majority concluded the stipulation effectively eliminated the mens rea element from the jury’s consideration. The conviction was reversed on ineffective assistance grounds.

 

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