You are here: / JUDGES

Tag Archive for: JUDGES

Judge’s Failure to Comply with CPL Re: Response to Jury Note Required Reversal

The Second Department held that the trial court’s failure to comply with Criminal Procedure Law 310.10 with respect to responding to a note from the jury concerning accomplice liability required reversal (despite the absence of an objection):

A new trial is required due to the trial court’s failure to meaningfully comply with CPL 310.10. During deliberations, the jury sent four notes to the trial court. The record reflects that, on the fourth occasion, the court did not disclose the contents of the note to the prosecutor and defense counsel until serially reading, and immediately responding to, the questions contained therein in the presence of the jury. All three of the questions in this note concerned the subject of accomplice liability.

The jury’s requests for further explanation of the meaning of accomplice liability within the context of this case required a “substantive response”, rather than a merely “ministerial” one … . As such, the trial court’s failure to afford defense counsel “the opportunity to provide suggestions” … regarding the court’s responses to the jury’s questions constituted “a mode of proceedings error . . . requiring reversal” …, despite defense counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s handling of the jury’s fourth note … .  People v Gadson, 2013 NY Slip Op 07059, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

, ,

Judge Who Had Represented Defendant Not Required to Recuse Himself

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott (over a substantial partial dissent which dealt with defense counsel’s antagonistic behavior toward the judge and degrading comments about the defendant), the Court of Appeals determined the trial judge, who had represented the defendant in the past on an unrelated matter (about which the judge had no specific memory), properly denied defendant’s recusal request which alleged bias on the judge’s part:

Unless disqualification is required under Judiciary Law § 14, a judge’s decision on a recusal motion is one of discretion … .  “This discretionary decision is within the personal conscience of the court when the alleged appearance of impropriety arises from inappropriate awareness of nonjuridical data” … .  We have held that for any alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying it “must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case” … .  People v Glynn, 155, CtApp 10-17-13

 

,

Trial Judge’s Participation in Readbacks Not Mode of Proceedings Error

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, the Court of Appeals determined the trial judge’s participation in the readbacks of testimony requested by the jury did not amount to a mode of proceedings error.

…[T]he two jury notes — requests for readbacks of two witnesses’ testimony — were disclosed in their entirety in open court before the trial judge responded to them. And the judge explained exactly how he was going to conduct the readbacks.  If defense counsel considered the judge’s intended approach prejudicial, he certainly had an opportunity to ask him to alter course, and it behooved him to do so… . * * *

…[W]e agree with the [2nd] Department that, as a general matter, a trial judge should shun engaging in readbacks of testimony.  In the usual case, it is easy enough for a judge to assign this task to non-judicial court personnel and thereby avoid any risk of creating a misperception in the minds of the jurors.

In a case where a trial judge nonetheless elects to participate in a readback (certainly, nothing in CPL 310.30 prohibits it), any error is not of the mode of proceedings variety.  “Not every procedural misstep in a criminal case is a mode of proceedings error”; rather, this narrow exception to the preservation rule is “reserved for the most fundamental flaws,” such as shifting the burden of proof from prosecution to the defense, or delegating a trial judge’s function to a law secretary… . People v Alcide, 143, CtApp 10-10-13

 

,

Cross-Examination About Omission from Witness’ Statement to Police Should Have Been Allowed

The Second Department concluded the trial court should have allowed the cross-examination of a witness about a physical characteristic of the defendant the witness had not mentioned to the police:

“[A] witness may not be impeached simply by showing that he [or she] omitted to state a fact, or to state it more fully at a prior time” … . However, impeachment by omission is permissible when the witness omits a critical fact … . “An omission of fact at a prior time is insufficient for impeachment purposes unless it is shown that at th[at] prior time the witness’ attention was called to the matter and that he [or she] was specifically asked about the facts embraced in the question propounded at trial'” … . ” [C]urtailment [of cross-examination] will be judged improper when it keeps from the jury relevant and important facts bearing on the trustworthiness of crucial testimony'” … . Here, given the eyewitness’s testimony which demonstrated that the defendant’s “squinting,” “partly closed” left eye was a significant factor in his identifying the defendant as the assailant, the trial court erred in precluding the defendant from cross-examining the eyewitness about his omission of this observation of the assailant’s appearance when he described the assailant to the police… . People v Greene, 2013 NY Slip Op 06589, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

,

Trial Judge Should Have Allowed Slightly Late Peremptory Challenge—Conviction Reversed

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction based on the trial court’s refusal to allow the defense a peremptory challenge.  Defense counsel had mistakenly crossed out the juror’s name and quickly let the court know about the mistake:

After several prospective jurors had been excused for cause, the court directed the attorneys to exercise their peremptory challenges to the first group of prospective jurors in the panel.  The prosecutor exercised several challenges, followed by defense counsel.  As the court began to indicate the number of challenges that remained for each side, defense counsel immediately asked if he could exercise a peremptory challenge to the prospective juror in question on appeal.  When the court said no, defense counsel indicated that he had “crossed [the prospective juror’s name] out by mistake.”  The court reiterated that it would not permit the challenge, indicating that it had warned the attorneys about adhering to the court’s procedures.

“Under these circumstances, ‘we can detect no discernable interference or undue delay caused by [defense counsel’s] momentary oversight . . . that would justify [the court’s] hasty refusal to entertain [his] challenge,’ ” and we thus conclude that the court’s refusal to permit the challenge was an abuse of discretion … .  Inasmuch as “the right to exercise a peremptory challenge against a specific prospective juror is a ‘substantial right’ . . . , reversal is mandated” … . People v Rosario-Boria, 1007, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

, ,

Writ of Prohibition Barring Retrial Granted—Mistrial Granted Without Consent of Defendant Was Not Justified

The First Department granted a writ of prohibition barring a retrial of the defendant because the judge ordered a mistrial without the consent of the defendant based upon a comment made by defense counsel in summation. The First Department determined the comment was not sufficiently prejudicial to justify the mistrial:

Jeopardy attaches once a jury has been selected and sworn … . When a mistrial is declared without the consent or over the objection of a criminal defendant, the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and in section 6 of article I of the New York State Constitution bars retrial for the same offense or offenses unless there is a manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated … . Here, as the People concede, counsel’s summation comment was not overly prejudicial and provided no basis for a mistrial on “manifest necessity” or “ends of public justice” grounds. Matter of Smith v Williams, 2013 NY Slip Op 06329, 1st Dept 10-1-13

 

,

Criteria for Allowing Defendant to Proceed Pro Se Explained

In upholding the trial judge’s allowing defendant to proceed pro se, the Fourth Department explained the relevant criteria:

“A defendant in a criminal case may invoke the right to defend [pro se] provided:  (1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues” … .  “If a timely and unequivocal request has been asserted, then the trial court is obligated to conduct a ‘searching inquiry’ to ensure that the defendant’s waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary”… . * * *

Before granting defendant’s request to proceed pro se, the court conducted the requisite searching inquiry, during which defendant stated, inter alia, that he had successfully represented himself at trial in a prior case.  From his initial appearance to his mid-trial request to proceed pro se, defendant expressed dissatisfaction with his assigned attorneys, against whom he had filed multiple complaints with the Attorney Grievance Committee, and he engaged in concerted efforts to assist in his defense.  The court “had numerous opportunities to see and hear . . . defendant firsthand, and, thus, had general knowledge of defendant’s age, literacy and familiarity with the criminal justice system” … .  In addition, the court fulfilled its obligation to ensure that defendant was “aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” … .  People v Chandler, 985, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

, , ,

Writ of Prohibition Granted to Prevent Trial Judge from Precluding Testimony of Complainant—Complainant Would Not Release His Psychiatric Records

The First Department granted a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial judge from precluding the testimony of the complainant in a robbery case. The judge had precluded the testimony after the complainant refused to sign a HIPAA form to release his psychiatric records.  The complainant had acknowledged that he received psychiatric treatment and that he had auditory and visual hallucinations which were controlled by medication.  The First Department wrote:

An article 78 proceeding seeking relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and is available to prevent a court from exceeding its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction … . “The writ does not lie as a means of seeking a collateral review of an error of law, no matter how egregious that error might be . . . but only where the very jurisdiction and power of the court are in issue” … . Here, the court had no authority to issue this preclusion order since the records were neither discoverable nor Brady material … . It is undisputed that the People did not have the complainant’s records and did not know where he had been treated … . The People had no affirmative duty to ascertain the extent of the complainant’s psychiatric history or obtain his records … . The People advised the defense of the information they had regarding the complainant’s diagnosis and also apprised the defense of the complainant’s statements regarding his hallucinations. Therefore, no claim can be made that the People concealed any information from the court or the defense.  Matter of Johnson v Sackett, 2013 NY Slip Op 05663, 1st Dept 8-20-13

 

Defendant’s Wearing a Stun Belt During Trial Without Knowledge of Judge Did Not Constitute a “Mode of Proceedings” Error

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s wearing of a “stun belt” during his trial (unbeknownst to the judge and to which no objection was made) did not constitute a mode of proceedings error.  The dissent argued to the contrary, characterizing the sheriff’s use of the stun belt without the court’s involvement as a usurpation of the power of the court:

County Court could not have granted defendant’s motion under CPL 440.10 (1) (f) unless the unauthorized use of the stun belt at trial constitutes a mode of proceedings error, in which case reversal would have been required on direct appeal if the use of the stun belt had been disclosed on the record … .

We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleague that the improper use of the stun belt, i.e., at the direction of the Sheriff rather than the court, constitutes a mode of proceedings error.

Indeed, we note that a mode of proceedings error occurs “[w]here the procedure adopted by the court . . . is at a basic variance with the mandate of law” …, and that is not the case here.  We further note that in Buchanan the court deferred to the Sheriff, indeed delegated to the Sheriff, the determination whether defendant should wear the stun belt after the court acknowledged that defendant had done nothing to merit it (see Buchanan, 13 NY3d at 3), but the Court of Appeals did not find the error to be a mode of proceedings error.  Instead, the Court of Appeals simply ruled that the court failed to exercise its discretion… .  People v Schrock, 800, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

,

Judge’s Refusal to Allow Defendant to Call Inmate Witness Required Reversal

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial court refused defendant’s request to present an inmate witness who might have supported defendant’s version of events:

CPL 630.10 provides for the attendance of an inmate witness in a criminal action or proceeding upon a demonstration of “reasonable cause to believe that such person possesses information material” to such proceeding.  Here, defendant made the requisite showing under that statute, and the court abused its discretion in refusing to order the production of the subject inmate witness whose testimony defendant sought to present at trial… .  There is no dispute that the proposed inmate witness spoke to the driver of the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger just before defendant’s arrest.  The proposed witness was at a distance of between 20 feet and 20 yards from the vehicle at the time of defendant’s arrest.  Moreover, we note that there was no fingerprint evidence in this case, which involved a top count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]), and the issue of defendant’s guilt turned largely on the testimony of two police detectives.  We cannot countenance the court’s refusal to allow defendant to present the testimony of a witness who might have supported defendant’s version of events.  People v Baxter, 599, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

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