You are here: / PRESERVATION OF ERROR

Tag Archive for: PRESERVATION OF ERROR

,

Preservation by Objection Not Required When Defendant First Learns of Post-Release Supervision Moments Before Sentencing

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, the Third Department vacated defendant's plea to a probation violation because no mention of a period of post-release supervision was made until moments before sentencing.  The court determined there was no need to preserve the error by objection because the defendant had so little time between notification of the post-release supervision and sentencing:

…[W]hether preservation is necessary hinges upon whether the defendant “had ample opportunity to object after the initial [reference to postrelease supervision] was made and before sentence was formally imposed” … . Thus, where “the court first mention[s] postrelease supervision only moments before imposing the sentence,” thereby depriving the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to weigh his or her options at that stage of the proceeding, preservation is not required … .

Although we are mindful that the matter before us concerns a plea of guilty to a violation of probation — as opposed to a plea of guilty to a crime — the analysis employed by the Court of Appeals …is equally applicable here. As noted previously, County Court made no mention of postrelease supervision during the course of defendant's plea colloquy …, nor does the record indicate that defendant otherwise was made aware — prior to entering her plea to the probation violation — that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence … . Rather, the need to impose a period of postrelease supervision was first raised at sentencing — quite literally moments before defendant's sentence actually was imposed … . Under these circumstances, preservation was not required, and County Court's failure to apprise defendant that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence mandates reversal. People v Bolivar, 2014 NY Slip Op 02980, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

Although a “Fundamental” Error Requiring Reversal If Preserved, Failure to Administer the Oath of Truthfulness to Potential Jurors is Not a “Mode of Proceedings” Error

The Third Department determined that defendant was not entitled to reversal based on the trial judge’s failure to administer the oath of truthfulness to potential jurors (Criminal Procedure Law 270.15(1)(a))  because the error, although fundamental, was not preserved for appeal by objection. It was not a “mode of proceedings” error (which would not need to be preserved by objection to require reversal). Had the error been preserved, reversal would have been mandatory. People v Chancey, 2015 NY Slip Op 03197, 3rd Dept 4-16-15

 

, ,

Prosecutor Acted as an Unsworn Witness and Improperly Suggested Defendant Committed Offenses With Which He Was Not Charged—Conviction Reversed in the Interest of Justice

The Second Department determined defendant’s weapon-possession conviction must be reversed because of the misconduct of the prosecutor.  Although the errors were not preserved by objection, the court invoked its “interest of justice” power to reach the issue.  The prosecutor functioned as an unsworn witness by indicating, during cross-examination of the defendant, that her office had called a restaurant to find out the closing time and using that information to impeach the defendant’s testimony. The prosecutor, in her summation, accused the defendant of lying based on the unsworn “restaurant closing-time” information she had put on the record.  In addition, the prosecutor suggested that defendant intended to use the weapon to harm someone and had committed multiple gun-possession offenses, unsupported claims not relevant to the charged offense:

The prosecutor improperly functioned as an unsworn witness when she cross-examined the defendant regarding the closing time of a restaurant in Brooklyn … .  The police officers who conducted the traffic stop testified on their direct examinations that the traffic stop occurred at 9:35 p.m. On his direct examination, in contrast, the defendant testified that the traffic stop occurred between 8:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m., while he and the other occupants of the vehicle were on their way to a restaurant in Brooklyn. During the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defendant, she improperly suggested facts not in evidence when she implied that the District Attorney’s office had called the restaurant to ascertain its hours of operation, and asked the defendant whether he testified that the traffic stop occurred between 8:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. because he knew that the restaurant was not open at 9:35 p.m. … . During summation, the prosecutor again improperly implied, without having submitted any evidence about the closing time of the restaurant, that the defendant had lied about what he was doing at the time of the traffic stop … .

Further, the prosecutor made improper remarks during summation which suggested that the defendant possessed the weapon with an intent to use it to harm someone, even though this was not an element of the crime for which the defendant was on trial … . Similarly, the prosecutor’s questioning of the defendant about one of his tattoos was improper and led to the inflammatory and unsupported inference that the defendant had previously used the weapon to harm someone … . It was also improper for the prosecutor to argue during summation that the defendant had learned certain information during the pretrial hearing even though there was no evidence to support this assertion … .

In addition, the prosecutor’s statement during summation that the defendant did not make any sudden movements during the traffic stop because he had already “played out this exact scenario in his mind . . . every time he left his house with that gun” was improper speculation, without any basis in the record, that the defendant had committed multiple gun possession offenses prior to the subject incident which led to his arrest … .People v Rowley, 2015 NY Slip Op 02988, 2nd Dept 4-8-15

 

, ,

Defense Counsel’s Absence When Judge Decided to Replace a Sick Juror Not Preserved by Objection/Court Need Not Put on the Record Its Consideration of Alternatives to Courtroom Closure/Factual Allegations Insufficient to Justify a Suppression Hearing

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, determined defense counsel’s absence from the courtroom when the judge put on the record that he was replacing a sick juror was not a mode of proceedings error and was not preserved by objection. Defense counsel entered the courtroom just as the judge seated the alternate juror and did not object. The Court of Appeals also determined the trial judge was not required to put on the record his consideration of measures other than the closure of the courtroom when undercover officers testified, and sufficient facts were not raised in the defense motion papers to justify a suppression hearing:

Here, although defense counsel was not present in court while the judge was stating on the record that he intended to replace the sick juror and counsel for co-defendant was objecting to that replacement, the record shows that prior to arriving in the courtroom, counsel was aware from his discussion with the court that there was a sick juror and that the court had previously excused an alternate juror for psychological reasons. Most importantly, defense counsel was in the courtroom when the judge told the alternate to take the seat of the sick juror. If counsel had any objection to the replacement of the juror, including a desire to be heard further on the issue, he had the time and the opportunity to make his position known. It was incumbent upon him to raise an objection at that time, before the trial proceeded. Certainly, the better practice would have been for the trial judge to await counsel’s arrival before placing his decision regarding the juror on the record. While, as the dissent notes, defense counsel was absent during the on-the-record discussion about dismissing the juror, nonetheless, counsel was present at the critical time when the sick juror was being replaced by the alternate, and counsel did not raise any objection concerning the right to counsel or otherwise, at a time when the trial court had the opportunity to change course. * * *

… [T]his Court has rejected the argument that United States Supreme Court precedent requires a trial court to explain, on the record, the alternatives to closure that it considered (People v Echevarria, 21 NY3d 1, 18 [2013]; People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 504 [1997]). Rather, we have concluded that where the record establishes, as it does here, the need to close a portion of the proceedings, “it can be implied that the trial court, in ordering closure, determined that no lesser alternative would protect the articulated interest”… . * * *

… [D]efendant’s simple denial that he was not engaged in any criminal conduct at the time he was stopped did not raise any issue of fact requiring a [suppression] hearing. It was defendant’s role in the conspiracy … and his conduct … at the time of the purchase of the kilogram of cocaine that provided probable cause to arrest him. Under those circumstances, it was incumbent upon defendant to refute the allegations in order to obtain a hearing. People v Garay, 2015 NY Slip Op 02672, CtApp 3-31-15

 

Failure to Inform Defendant of the Period of Postrelease Supervision Required Reversal in the Absence of an Objection

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s conviction must be reversed because he was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision (PRS) at the time of the plea, and he could not be expected to object because he was not informed of the PRS until the end of the sentencing hearing:

…[D]efendant was not required to preserve for our review his challenge to the imposition of PRS under these circumstances. “A defendant cannot be expected to object to a constitutional deprivation of which [he] is unaware . . . [W]here the defendant was only notified of the PRS term at the end of the sentencing hearing, the defendant can hardly be expected to move to withdraw [the] plea on a ground of which [he or she] has no knowledge’ . . . And, in that circumstance, the failure to seek to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment does not preclude appellate review of the due process claim” … . Furthermore, “[b]ecause a defendant pleading guilty to a determinate sentence must be aware of the [PRS] component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action, the failure of a court to advise of postrelease supervision requires reversal of the conviction” (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245). “[T]he record does not make clear, as required by Catu, that at the time defendant took his plea, he was aware that the terms of the court’s promised sentence included a period of PRS” because only the term of incarceration of 20 years was stated on the record … . While a term of PRS was mentioned earlier in the plea negotiations, it is undisputed that there was no mention of PRS at the plea proceeding and, based on our review of the record, we conclude that defendant was not “advised of what the sentence would be, including its PRS term, at the outset of the sentencing proceeding” … . People v Rives, 2015 NY Slip Op 02316, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

,

Proof at Trial Did Not Sufficiently Pinpoint Time of the Alleged Sexual Offenses—Convictions Vacated

The Second Department determined the proof at trial did not sufficiently pinpoint the time of the alleged sexual offenses.  The offenses were alleged at trial to have been committed within a four-year time period for one victim and within a one-year time period for another.  The related convictions were vacated:

Here, numerous counts of the consolidated indictment charged various acts of criminal sexual act (see Penal Law § 130.45[1]) and sexual abuse (see Penal Law §§ 130.55, 130.60), which involved several single acts. These acts spanned a time period of at least four years with respect to Gabrielle, and approximately one year with respect to Angela. In an effort to specify a time period that was not unreasonably excessive, the District Attorney drafted the indictment to divide these time periods mostly into two-month intervals. Although the indictment, on its face, may have been sufficient, the trial testimony revealed that the complainants lacked any ability “to particularize the date and time of the alleged . . . offense[s]” …, and that there was no real basis in fact for the intervals alleged with respect to these counts … . Thus, “[t]he mere fact that the District Attorney artfully drafted the indictment by arbitrarily dividing” those otherwise excessive time periods into two-month intervals despite the absence of any basis in fact, “cannot detract from the conclusion that the time periods” with respect to these single-act crimes “were unreasonable” under the circumstances here … . Under the circumstances of this case, despite the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for appellate review, we reach the issue in the interest of justice, and we vacate the defendant’s convictions of criminal sexual act in the second degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, and sexual abuse in the third degree … . People v Atta, 2015 NY Slip Op 01809, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

Failure to Make a Finding of Necessity Re: Restraining Defendant at Trial with a Stun Belt Is Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—Error Must Be Preserved by Objection (No Objection Here)

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court’s failure to make a finding of necessity re: the defendant’s wearing a stun belt (a restraint device) at trial was not a mode of proceedings error.  Therefore the error must be preserved by objection.  Here the defendant consented to the restraint.  People v Cooke, 2015 NY Slip Op 01557, CtApp 2-24-15

 

,

Under the Facts, the Judge’s Failure to Mention the Imposition of Post-Release Supervision as Part of the Sentence at the Time of the Plea Was an Error that Must Be Preserved by Objection (No Objection Made)

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined that defendant, under the facts, was precluded from raising the judge’s failure to inform defendant at the time of defendant’s plea that post-release supervision (PRS) would be part of defendant’s sentence because the error was not preserved by objection.  Here defendant and/or defendant’s counsel had been informed of the imposition of PRS both before and after the plea:

In People v Catu [4 NY3d 242], this Court held that “the trial court has the constitutional duty to ensure that a defendant, before pleading guilty, has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences” … . A court is not required to engage in any particular litany when allocuting a defendant, but the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant … . We found that “[p]ostrelease supervision is significant” and that a defendant “must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntary and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action” … .

Defendant claims that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent under Catu because County Court failed to reiterate the term of PRS during the plea colloquy. We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, defendant was required to preserve his claim.

Defendant and his attorney had three opportunities to object to the imposition of PRS: at the initial scheduled sentencing July 15, at his sentencing on July 28, and at the appearance on August 17. Neither defendant nor defense counsel expressed any objection to the imposition of PRS. Because defendant had ample opportunity to raise an objection to the PRS component prior to and during these proceedings, defendant was required to preserve his claim … . People v Crowder, 2015 NY Sip Op 01481, CtApp 2-17-15

 

,

Larceny Jury Instruction Shifted Burden of Proof to Defendant—Reversal Required In Absence of Preservation of the Error

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the jury instruction shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:

Penal Law § 155.15 (1) provides that, “[i]n any prosecution for larceny committed by trespassory taking or embezzlement, it is an affirmative defense that the property was appropriated under a claim of right made in good faith.” …[H]owever, the Court of Appeals in People v Chesler (50 NY2d 203, 209-210) “held that section 155.15 was unconstitutional insofar as it made a good-faith claim of right an affirmative defense because to do so impermissibly shifted the burden onto the defendant to disprove the element of intent.” Rather, “a good faith claim of right is properly a defense–—not an affirmative defense—–and thus, the [P]eople have the burden of disproving such defense beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” … . Here, however, the court instructed the jury that “defendant has the burden of proving that she took, withheld or obtained the property under a claim of right made in good faith by a preponderance of the evidence.” We conclude that the court committed a mode of proceedings error when it shifted the burden onto defendant to disprove the element of intent …, thereby requiring reversal of the judgment and a new trial even in the absence of preservation … . People v Forbes-Haas, 2015 NY Slip Op 00092, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Where Proof Is Directed Exclusively to a Theory Not Charged in the Indictment, the Proof Is Insufficient to Support the Conviction—Such a Variance Need Not Be Preserved by Objection to Be Raised on Appeal/Conduct of Spectators (Mouthing Words When Victim Testified) Did Not Require that the Spectators Be Removed and Did Not Mandate the Declaration of a Mistrial

The Fourth Department determined that variance between the charges described in the indictment and the proof at trial required the dismissal of several counts.  Such a variance does not need to be preserved for appeal by objection.  The court noted that the trial judge’s failure to exclude spectators who were mouthing word’s during the victim’s testimony was not an abuse of discretion:

“Where the charge against a defendant is limited either by a bill of particulars or the indictment itself, the defendant has a fundamental and nonwaivable’ right to be tried only on the crimes charged” … . We have thus held that, where, as here, a defendant contends that he or she has been convicted upon an uncharged theory of the crime, such a contention does not require preservation… . * * *

“Where there is a variance between the proof and the indictment, and where the proof is directed exclusively to a new theory rather than the theory charged in the indictment, the proof is deemed insufficient to support the conviction” … . Counts two and three of the indictment alleged hand-to-vagina contact, but the victim testified that the only part of defendant’s body that came into contact with her vagina was defendant’s penis. Indeed, when asked specifically if any other part of defendant’s body came into contact with her vagina during the incident encompassed by counts two and three, the victim responded, “No.” Count nine of the indictment alleged penis-to-vagina contact, but the victim testified that defendant touched her vagina with his hand during that incident. Again, when asked specifically if any other part of defendant’s body came into contact with her vagina during the incident encompassed by count nine, the victim responded, “No.” We thus conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction with respect to counts two, three and nine and that defendant was denied his fundamental and nonwaivable right to be tried on only those crimes charged in the indictment. We therefore modify the judgment accordingly.  People v Duell, 2015 NY Slip Op 00014, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy