You are here: / Evidence
,

TWO PRIOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON INCIDENTS IN 2006 AND 2007, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THE WEAPONS BELONGED TO ANOTHER AND HE WAS UNAWARE OF THEIR PRESENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX IN THIS 2017 POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THEY WERE PLACED IN THE VEHICLE BY ANOTHER WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE; THERE WAS A CONCURRENCE AND A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a concurrence and a three-judge dissent, determined evidence of two prior possession-of-a-weapon incidents in 2006 and 2007, one uncharged and one misdemeanor, should not have been admitted under Molineux in the instant 2017 weapons-possession prosecution. In the 2006 and 2007 cases, defendant claimed the weapons belonged to another and he wasn’t aware of their presence. In the 2017 case defendant claimed someone else put the weapons in his vehicle without his knowledge. The weapons were legally purchased and registered to the defendant in Florida:

During an inventory search, the police recovered various items, including two small bags of marijuana and cash. They also found a loaded .45 caliber gun in the truck’s center console, as well as three handguns and ammunition in the flatbed area; each firearm was legally purchased and registered in Telfair’s name in Florida. The defendant was charged with several crimes related to possession of weapons and ammunition, as well as various vehicle and traffic violations.

The People moved under People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 (1901) to introduce evidence of two prior incidents involving Telfair’s possession of a weapon: a 2006 uncharged crime and a 2007 misdemeanor conviction for weapon possession. The People expected that Telfair would claim at trial that someone else had packed his truck and unbeknownst to him, placed his guns inside it, and the prior acts would show the defendant actually knew he possessed the firearms on the day of his arrest. Defense counsel responded that given the temporal remoteness and dissimilarity of the prior incidents, they had “little, if any, probative value” and were highly prejudicial, in part because the 2007 conviction concerned the same charge for which Telfair was now on trial. When asked whether he would assert that Telfair did not know the guns were in his car, defense counsel did not disclaim the defense. * * *

The 2006 and 2007 incidents were neither very similar nor close in time to the 2017 incident. Just the opposite: they involved different guns, different sets of circumstances, different excuses, and occurred more than 10 years earlier. People v Telfair, 2023 NY Slip Op 05965, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: This case must be read carefully and repeatedly, as it illustrates subtle but profoundly important restrictions on the admissibility of Molineux evidence.

 

,

THE TRAFFIC STOP OF A BICYCLIST IS A SEIZURE REQUIRING REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OR PROBABLE CAUSE DEFENDANT HAS VIOLATED THE RULES OF THE ROAD (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, ETC.); HERE THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT AND THE GUN SEIZED FROM HIM AFTER THE STOP SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, determined a traffic-stop of a bicyclist is a seizure and requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or probable cause defendant violated the rules of the road (Vehicle and Traffic Law, NYC Administrative Law, etc.). Here the defendant was riding in the middle of the road such that cars avoided him, was holding something in his waistband, and had only one had on the handlebars. He was not charged with any violations of the rules of the road. When stopped the defendant admitted he had a gun which was seized. Defendant’s statements and the gun should have been suppressed:

“Like all seizures, the officer’s action[s]” during a traffic stop “must be justified at its inception” … . Here, the officers’ actions were unjustified from the beginning because, as the prosecution concedes, the police possessed neither probable cause of a VTL violation nor reasonable suspicion of criminality … . Although the officer vaguely commented during the suppression hearing that defendant was riding “in a somewhat reckless manner,” he did not testify that he suspected a VTL violation—let alone that he had probable cause of one Instead, the officer testified that the primary motivation for the stop was that defendant was “holding an object in his waistband,” but admitted that he did not know what the “object” was, except that it was “bulky.” This observation of course fell well short of establishing reasonable suspicion of criminality … . Indeed, at no point before the stop did the officers suspect defendant was carrying contraband and, in fact, they were “caught . . . off guard” after the stop, when defendant admitted that he was carrying a gun. * * *

From the dissent:

A police officer observed defendant Lance Rodriguez riding a bicycle while clutching a bulky object at his waistband. The officer asked defendant to stop and, upon doing so, defendant admitted that he was carrying a gun. Today, the majority abandons this Court’s long-settled precedent, overturns a gun conviction stemming from reasonable police action, and creates a new rule that transforms any stop of a bicycle from a facts and circumstances inquiry into a per se seizure. People v Rodriguez, 2023 NY Slip Op 05972, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: The traffic stop of a bicyclist is a “seizure” requiring reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or probable cause to believe the bicyclist has violated the rules of the road.

 

, , ,

THE MAJORITY REJECTED THE ARGUMENT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE A CONFRONTATION-CLAUSE CHALLENGE TO DNA EVIDENCE OFFERED BY A WITNESS WHO WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE DNA; STRONG, COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissenting opinion, rejected defendant’s ineffective-assistance claim based upon defense counsel’s failure to raise a Confrontation Clause challenge to the admission of DNA evidence:

Defendant asserts that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to argue that the admission into evidence of DNA reports through the testimony of an analyst who did not perform, witness or supervise the testing, or independently analyze the raw data, violated his constitutional right to confrontation. This argument is without merit. “Even assuming that counsel failed to assert a meritorious Confrontation Clause challenge, the alleged omission does not ‘involve an issue that [was] so clear-cut and dispositive that no reasonable defense counsel would have failed to assert it'” … . Nor, on this record, has defendant demonstrated that the alleged error was not a matter of legitimate trial strategy … .

From the dissent:

At trial, the prosecution admitted two reports containing DNA analyses through a criminalist who testified, based on his review of the file prepared by another criminalist, that defendant’s DNA matched DNA on a screwdriver recovered from the scene of the break-in. This evidence was therefore admitted through a surrogate witness in violation of the Confrontation Clause … . The question on this appeal is whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Confrontation Clause objection to this evidence’s admission. At the time of defendant’s trial, the law was sufficiently settled to support such an objection. Indeed, counsel recognized that the basis for the testifying criminalist’s conclusions was vulnerable to attack, as he asked the jury to reject those conclusions on the ground that the criminalist did not conduct the DNA testing. Given that the prosecution’s entire case rested upon this DNA evidence, counsel’s failure to challenge this evidence on Confrontation Clause grounds cannot be explained as a reasonable strategy. People v Espinosa, 2023 NY Slip Op 05971, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: The majority concluded defense counsel’s failure to raise a confrontation-clause challenge to DNA evidence presented by a witness who was not involved in the DNA analysis did not constitute ineffective assistance. There was a strong, comprehensive dissent.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE INVENTORY SEARCH AND THE ADMISSION OF CERTAIN TESTIMONY HE DEEMED PREJUDICIAL, AND HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO NEW YORK’S WEAPONS-POSSESSION REGIME REJECTED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a dissent, rejected defendant’s challenges to the inventory search and to purported prejudicial testimony allowed by the trial judge. Defendant’s constitutional challenge to New York’s weapons-possession regime rejected as unpreserved:

Defendant Carlos L. David challenges his conviction for two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (see Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) on several grounds. He argues that the police recovered the handguns that gave rise to his conviction during an invalid inventory search, and that Supreme Court improperly allowed prejudicial testimony at his trial. Neither argument provides grounds for reversal. David additionally argues that Penal Law § 265.03 (3) is facially unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen, 142 S Ct 2111 (2022). This argument is unpreserved, and for the reasons set forth below, we do not reach it. People v David, 2023 NY Slip Op 05970, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: The constitutional challenges to New York’s weapons-possession regime rejected as unpreserved.

 

, , ,

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.

 

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