You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

UNWARNED STATEMENTS MADE WHEN THE POLICE APPROACHED DEFENDANT GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR AND HANDCUFFED HIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE SUBSEQUENT CONSENT TO SEARCH, MADE AFTER MIRANDA WARNINGS, WAS NOT TAINTED BY THE UNWARNED CUSTODIAL QUESTIONING; DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUIONAL CHALLENGES TO NEW YORK’S GUN LICENSING REGIME WERE NOT PRESERVED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a two-judge dissent, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, determined defendant was in custody when the police approached him after defendant got out of his car and handcuffed him. Statements made at that time about the presence of weapons in the car should have been suppressed. However defendant’s subsequent consent to search the car, given an hour and a half after the officers initially approached defendant and after the Miranda warnings, was not tainted by the initial custodial questioning. The dissent argued the consent to search was in fact tainted. The court rejected defendant’s constitutional arguments attacking the validity of New York’s gun-licensing regime as unpreserved:

Preservation of a constitutional challenge, in particular, “ensures that the drastic step of striking duly enacted legislation will be taken not in a vacuum but only after the lower courts have had an opportunity to address the issue and the unconstitutionality of the challenged provision has been established beyond a reasonable doubt” … . For these reasons, we have carefully guarded the preservation rule against “erosion” … . * * *

… [A] reasonable innocent person in Cabrera’s {defendant’s] position could not have felt free to leave when three law enforcement officers approached him at night, on a residential street, and handcuffed him before questioning him about the firearms in his vehicle. The level to which the police restricted Cabrera’s movement was of a degree associated with a formal arrest. Nor does the record suggest that the defendant had any reason to believe that he would be handcuffed only for a limited duration. … [T]here is no record support for the conclusion of the courts below that Cabrera was not in custody for Miranda purposes. On appeal, the People have conceded that the defendant was subject to interrogation and that they did not argue below that the public safety exception applied. Custodial status is therefore dispositive; in the absence of warnings, his statements should have been suppressed. People v Cabrera, 2023 NY Slip Op 05968, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: Statements made after police approached defendant on the street and handcuffed him should have been suppressed, but the unwarned custodial questioning did not taint a subsequent consent to search given after Miranda warnings.

Practice Point: Constitutional arguments, here attacking New York’s gun-licensing regime, must be preserved before the Court of Appeals can address them.

 

, ,

THE COURT OF APPEALS, OVERRULING PRECEDENT, DETERMINED THE AUTOPSY REPORTS WERE “TESTIMONIAL” IN NATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH AN EXPERT WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE AUTOPSIES; ADMISSION OF THE REPORTS AND THE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, determined the admission of two autopsy reports through an expert witness who did not perform the autopsies, as well as the witness’s testimony, violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. The Court of Appeals overruled its decision in Frycinet (11 NY3d at 39) which concluded autopsy reports were not “testimonial” and therefore did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. The erroneous admission of the evidence here, however, was deemed harmless by both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals:

Pursuant to [the] Confrontation Clause, a witness’s out-of-court “testimonial” statement may only be admitted for its truth where the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable for trial, where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine that witness (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 68 [2004]). …

This Court had occasion to consider the impact of Crawford and its progeny on the admission of autopsy reports in Freycinet, where it held that a redacted autopsy report was not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause (11 NY3d at 39). In reaching this conclusion, the Court evaluated four purported “indicia of testimoniality”: (1) “the extent to which the entity conducting the procedure is an arm of law enforcement”; (2) “whether the contents of the report are a contemporaneous record of objective facts”; (3) “whether a pro-law-enforcement bias is likely to influence the contents of the report”; and (4) “whether the report’s contents are directly accusatory in the sense that they explicitly link the defendant to the crime” … . All four factors, the Court concluded, weighed in the People’s favor and thus, the autopsy report at issue was not testimonial … . * * *

We now hold that Freycinet should no longer be followed because it is inconsistent with the demands of the Confrontation Clause as articulated more recently by the Supreme Court.  * * *

… [I]t is the People’s obligation to establish that their testifying experts, who did not perform or observe the relevant autopsy, reached their conclusions themselves based upon a review of the proper materials rather than the conclusions of the performing examiner. People v Ortega, 2023 NY Slip Op 05956, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: Autopsy reports are testimonial in nature and must be admitted in evidence through an expert who participated in the autopsies. The erroneous admission of the testimonial evidence was deemed harmless here, however.

 

,

THE POLICE WERE ALLOWED INTO THE VESTIBULE OF A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE BUT WERE NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENTER THE APARTMENT WHERE DEFENDANT WAS SEIZED; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined the police were only given permission to enter the vestibule of a two-family residence, not the apartment where defendant was seized:

Well before daybreak, four armed officers knocked repeatedly on the exterior door and window of a two-family residence. Someone responded by coming to the exterior door and opening it. The officers identified themselves as police, the person moved aside, and the officers entered the vestibule. Through the doorway of the downstairs apartment, they saw the person they wished to arrest, entered that apartment, and arrested him. The question before us is whether the suppression court should have granted Mr. Cuencas’s [defendant’s] motion to suppress for lack of consent for police to enter the apartment. * * *

… [T]he officers never sought consent to enter Mr. Cuencas’s apartment — only to enter the common vestibule to speak the person who answered the exterior door. The record shows that there were separate doors inside the vestibule, one for each of the two apartments in the building, each bearing a lock, and that each door was open. When the People asked Detective Fogelman to describe how he perceived the building upon his arrival at 5:30 AM, he testified that “It may have had two apartments, an upstairs and a downstairs.” Detective Fogelman asked for consent to enter through the exterior door into the vestibule, not into either of the two apartments, and it is not disputed that Mr. Cuencas’s apartment had a door separating it from the vestibule. People v Cuencas, 2023 NY Slip Op 05974, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: The person who answered the door allowed the police to enter the vestibule of a two-family residence. But consent to enter the vestibule did not constitute consent to enter the first-floor apartment where defendant was seized. The suppression motion should have been granted.

 

, ,

TO COMPLY WITH THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, THE ANALYST WHO TESTIFIES ABOUT A DNA PROFILE MUST HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE FINAL STAGE OF THE DNA ANALYSIS OR MUST HAVE CONDUCTED AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS USING ONLY THE RAW DATA; THE WITNESS HERE DID NOT MEET THAT CRITERIA (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the People did not demonstrate the witness through whom the DNA evidence was admitted had the necessary involvement in the DNA analysis:

We have held that “a single analyst” may testify so long as it is “an analyst who witnessed, performed or supervised the generation of defendant’s DNA profile, or who used his or her independent analysis on the raw data, as opposed to a testifying analyst functioning as a conduit for the conclusions of others” … . Accordingly, testimony from an analyst is sufficient where the witness has engaged in ” ‘the final-level DNA analysis, reviewed the results of the preliminary evidence processing conducted by colleagues, produced the relevant DNA profiles, and expressed her expert opinion’ ” as to the DNA match … . …

… [T]he testifying analyst must have either participated in or directly supervised this “final” step that generates the DNA profile, or must conduct an “independent analysis” of the data used to do so in a manner that enables replication of the determinations made at that stage in order to verify the profile …. The record here fails to establish that the testifying analyst had the requisite involvement with either of the DNA profiles. People v Jordan, 2023 NY Slip Op 05957, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: Here the People did not demonstrate the witness testifying about defendant’s DNA profile participated in the final stage of the DNA analysis or conducted an independent analysis using only the raw data. Therefore the analysist’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause.

 

,

DEFENDANT DROVE ON THE RIGHT SHOULDER TO GO AROUND A VEHICLE THAT WAS TURNING AND THEN SUDDENLY CROSSED THE DOUBLE LINE AND STRUCK A MOTORCYCLIST IN THE ONCOMING LANE; THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE “RECKLESS” CONDUCT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MANSLAUGHTER STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s manslaughter conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the evidence of how defendant was driving before his vehicle crossed into the oncoming lane and struck the victim’s motorcycle did not rise to the level of recklessness:

The People introduced eyewitness testimony at trial that, before the accident, defendant was tailgating a sport utility vehicle (SUV), “hitting his fist on the steering wheel[,] and looking a little agitated.” The driver and front passenger of the SUV testified that, as they made a left-hand turn, defendant passed their vehicle by driving onto the right shoulder of the two-lane roadway, yelling out that he was “going to get [them].” After defendant passed the SUV, his vehicle sharply turned left, crossed into the opposite lane, and struck the motorcycle.

… A defendant’s conduct is reckless with respect to the death of another person when the defendant “is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that death will result from it … . “The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” … .

Here … the only risk-creating conduct by defendant supporting his conviction of manslaughter in the second degree was his briefly driving on the shoulder of the road to pass a vehicle in front of him that was turning and his subsequently making a sharp left turn and crossing over the double yellow line into the opposite lane. … [T]hat conduct, standing alone, did not exhibit “the kind of seriously blameworthy carelessness whose seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong” necessary to establish recklessness with respect to the death of another … . People v Lavelle, 2023 NY Slip Op 05920, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: The facts of this case, defendant’s suddenly crossing a double yellow line and striking a motorcyclist in the oncoming lane, do not rise to the level of “recklessness” within the meaning of the reckless manslaughter statute.

 

,

PLAINTIFF, A PERMISSIVE DRIVER OF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK, WAS INJURED WHEN HE OPENED THE WATER RESERVOIR FOR THE ENGINE AND IT “EXPLODED,” APPARENTLY BECAUSE THE ENGINE OVERHEATED DUE TO THE POSITION OF THE SNOW PLOW AND THE CONSEQUENT BLOCKING OF AIR FLOW TO THE ENGINE; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS FORESEEABLE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the incident was foreseeable, whether plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the incident, and whether defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care. Plaintiff was driving defendant’s truck when everything on the dashboard turned red and plaintiff pulled over to check out the problem. When plaintiff opened the water reservoir cap the reservoir “exploded” injuring him. Plaintiff was told by the police officer who stopped to help that the position of the snow plow on the front of the truck was blocking air flow to the engine (apparently causing the engine to overheat). The Fourth Department determined there were questions of fact whether the incident was foreseeable, whether plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the incident, and whether defendant owed plaintiff, a permissive user of defendant’s truck, a duty of care:

… [T]here are triable issues of fact whether plaintiff’s conduct was a normal and foreseeable consequence of the truck’s mechanical issues … . * * *

… [D]efendant failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff’s conduct, in investigating the cause of the malfunction and checking the water level in the reservoir, was of an unreasonable character, was done in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow, or was done with conscious indifference to the outcome. * * *

The owner of a vehicle can be liable to permissive guests, users, or occupants if the owner knew or should have known of defects in the vehicle … . Bialecki v HBO Bldrs. W., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05907, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff, a permissive driver of defendant’s truck, was injured when he checked the engine water reservoir and it “exploded.” Apparently the engine overheated because the snow plow blocked air flow to the engine. There were questions of fact whether the incident was foreseeable, whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the incident, and whether defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care.

 

,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE TRAFFIC STOP OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS BASED ON A POLICE OFFICER’S COMPUTER DMV CHECK WHICH SHOWED DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE HAD LAPSED; IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPPRESSION MOTION THE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED VERIFICATION THAT THE INSURANCE HAD NOT LAPSED; AT THAT POINT THE PRESUMPTION OF RELIABILITY DISAPPEARED AND THE PEOPLE WERE REQUIRED TO SHOW THE RELIABILITY OF THE DMV CHECK, WHICH THEY FAILED TO DO (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of suppression and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not meet their burden of going forward at the suppression hearing by demonstrating the legality of the police conduct. The traffic stop was justified by a DMV check showing the insurance of defendant’s vehicle had lapsed. In support of defendant’s motion to suppress, defendant presented a verification of insurance form demonstrating coverage had not lapsed. At that point the presumption that the DMV check was accurate disappeared and the People were required to demonstrate the information relied upon by the police was accurate. The People failed to so demonstrate:

… [D]efendant’s submission of the verification of insurance form in support of his supplemental motion was sufficient to challenge the presumed reliability of the information obtained by the officer that the vehicle’s registration was suspended due to an insurance lapse … . It was therefore incumbent upon the People to submit proof at the suppression hearing in addition to the officer’s testimony to establish the reliability of the information received by the officer, and the People failed to meet that burden … . People v Walker, 2023 NY Slip Op 05902, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: At a suppression hearing the People must first demonstrate the police conduct was legal. Here the traffic stop was based on a DMV check showing an insurance lapse. Defendant presented proof the insurance had not lapsed. At that point the presumption the DMV check was reliable disappeared and the People were required to show the DMV check was in fact reliable, which they failed to do. Suppression should have been granted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER WITHOUT A HEARING DEMONSTRATING THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the judge should have granted defendant’s request for a hearing before sentencing defendant as a persistent violent felony offender. There had been no determination whether the criteria for sentencing as a persistent violent felony offender (at least two sentences for violent felonies within the last 10 years) had been met:

Although defendant admitted at sentencing that he had been convicted of the prior violent felony offenses alleged in the People’s persistent violent felony offender statement, defendant did not concede that he had been sentenced on at least two of those violent felonies within 10 years prior to the commission of the instant offense, and the People’s statement did not set forth the commencement date, termination date, and place of imprisonment for each period of incarceration to be used for tolling of the ten-year limitation as required by CPL 400.15 (2). Moreover, as the People correctly concede, the record does not include a specific finding by the court regarding whether there was sufficient incarceration tolling for defendant’s prior violent felony convictions to count as predicate convictions. People v Scott, 2023 NY Slip Op 05900, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here defendant’s request for a hearing to determine whether the criteria for sentencing him as a persistent violent felony offender should have been granted.

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE GUN SHOTS AND THE 911 CALL STATING FOUR BLACK KIDS, ONE WITH A GUN, WERE WALKING AROUND JUSTIFIED APPROACHING DEFENDANT ON THE STREET AND JUSTIFIED PURSUING HIM AND SEARCHING HIM WHEN HE RAN; TWO DISSENTERS NOTED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT MATCH THE 911 CALLER’S DESCRIPTION AND ARGUED HIS FLIGHT ALONE DID NOT JUSTIFY PURSUIT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police lawfully approached the defendant on the street, lawfully pursued him when he ran, and lawfully searched him, recovering a handgun. The police had heard gun shots and were aware of a 911 call indicating four Black kids were walking around and one had a gun. The dissenters argued that the police were justified in approaching the defendant but that defendant’s flight did not justify the pursuit and search:

… [T]he officers, when they encountered defendant on the street, had a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot” … , thereby justifying a common-law approach and inquiry of all four men … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that his flight when lawfully approached by the police justified the ensuing pursuit, especially considering the unorthodox manner in which he was running, which, again, was observed before the officers gave chase … . At that point, it was reasonable for the officers to suspect that defendant possessed a firearm or was otherwise involved in the shooting that occurred minutes earlier less than a block away. * * *

From the dissent:

… [D]efendant did not match the description provided by the 911 caller of the person the caller said had a gun … . Although defendant was observed walking in the general vicinity of the reported gun shots, that observation does not provide the “requisite reasonable suspicion,” i.e., “in the absence of other objective indicia of criminality that would justify pursuit” … . People v Watkins, 2023 NY Slip Op 05804, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: The majority held the police properly approached the defendant on the street based upon hearing gunshots and a 911 call stating four Black kids, one with a gun, were walking around. The majority further held that defendant’s flight justified pursuit and a search of defendant’s person. Two dissenters noted that the defendant did not match the 911 caller’s description and argued his flight alone did not justify the pursuit.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF CROSSED INTO DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING LANE TO PASS A MAIL TRUCK, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT REACTED REASONABLY TO AN EMERGENCY; TWO OTHER CARS HAD ENTERED DEFENDANT’S LANE TO GO AROUND THE TRUCK JUST BEFORE THE COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff pulled into defendant’s lane of traffic to go around a mail truck. Just prior to the collision with plaintiff two other cars had passed the mail truck by pulling into defendant’s lane, yet plaintiff had not disengaged the cruise control. There was a question of fact whether defendant responded appropriately to the emergency:

A person facing an emergency is “not automatically absolve[d] . . . from liability” … . In determining whether the actions of a driver are reasonable in light of an emergency situation, the factfinder must consider “both the driver’s awareness of the situation and [the driver’s] actions prior to the occurrence of the emergency” … .

Defendant admitted that, after she noticed the mail truck, she observed two motor vehicles pass it by pulling out from behind the truck, crossing completely into the westbound lane, and returning to the eastbound lane of travel, but she nevertheless continued in the westbound lane without deactivating her cruise control. She then saw plaintiff’s vehicle cross over into her lane “possibly to see if there was oncoming traffic” before it reentered the eastbound lane. It was not until that point that plaintiff deactivated her cruise control, which had been set to 45 miles per hour. We conclude that issues of fact exist whether, given her observations, defendant responded reasonably under the circumstances … . Carollo v Solotes, 2023 NY Slip Op 05803, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff entered defendant’s oncoming law to pass a mail truck and collided with defendant. Usually an emergency will absolve a driver of liability. But there was evidence two other cars had pulled into defendant’s lane to pass the mail truck and defendant did not disengage the cruise control. Therefore there was a question of fact whether defendant responded reasonably to the emergency.

 

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