​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT'S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS 1ST DEPT)/INDICTMENT (FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT'S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS FIRST DEPT)/GRAND JURY  (FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT'S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS FIRST DEPT)/JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT'S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS FIRST DEPT)

 

CRIMINAL LAW.

​

FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT'S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS 1ST DEPT.

​

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the People's failure to seek the court's permission to re-present the murder charge to the grand jury was a jurisdictional defect to which a harmless error analysis could not be applied. The dissent argued the error was harmless because defendant (Allen) was acquitted of the murder charge (and convicted of manslaughter). The majority argued that the illegal murder charge loomed over the entire trial and necessarily affected defense strategy and jury deliberations:

​

The murder charge lacked jurisdictional legitimacy , violating Allen's constitutional right to be tried for a felony only upon a valid indictment ... . While the trial for murder did not violate double jeopardy, it cannot be doubted that the presence of the charge "impugn[ed] the very integrity of the criminal proceeding" (Mayo, 48 NY2d at 252). There is nothing to suggest that Mayo is limited to double jeopardy cases in the manner suggested by the dissent; indeed, the Mayo court recognized that errors of "constitutional magnitude . . . are so fundamental that their commission serves to invalidate the entire trial," and are not susceptible to a traditional spillover analysis, which has its "most convincing application in the area of trial errors concerning the admissibility of evidence" ... .

 

The dissent maintains that the right to an indictment by a grand jury is not a right "so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error" (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the New York State constitution holds that no person shall be held to answer for an infamous crime unless upon indictment of the grand jury (NY Const, art 1, § 6), and the right to indictment by grand jury has been recognized "as not merely a personal privilege of the defendant but a public fundamental right which is the basis of jurisdiction to try and punish an individual" ... .

 

Although defendant Allen was ultimately acquitted of the murder charge, the charge's presence loomed over the trial, and in some way influenced the verdict. Rather than continuing to deliberate concerning Allen's innocence — including evidence suggesting that he was surprised by the shooting, and may have intended that the victim receive no more than a "clipping" — the jury may have concluded that it had sufficiently grappled with the proof by acquitting him of the most serious charge. People v Allen, 2017 NY Slip Op 05501, 1st Dept 7-6-17

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT)/JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT)/ANONYMOUS JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT)

​

CRIMINAL LAW.

​

EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT.

​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, reversing (over a dissent) defendants' convictions in a gang assault case, and granting leave for the People to appeal to the Court of Appeals, determined it was reversible error to empanel an anonymous jury. The trial judge explained his reasoning for not revealing the jurors' names as follows: "I know the last five years an increasing number of jurors told me that A, they feel uncomfortable walking in and out of the courtroom to their cars; B, they feel really uncomfortable giving their names, especially in violent felonies. And after speaking to [the Commissioner of Jurors] about it, she told me that's exactly the same feedback she gets, that jurors are uncomfortable about those two things, especially having their names in the courtroom. Now, my intent is to get as many jurors as we can possibly get to serve. And I think that because of that, I think that it limits the number of jurors that we get because they don't want to go through that worry and stress . . . about this because these are violent felonies. You know and I know we deal with this stuff every day, jurors don't. And that's the reason. It's not specifically this case, but that's the reason it's happening more and more and more often. So that's the reason." The Second Department held the empaneling of an anonymous jury violated the criminal procedure law and the error was not harmless (the dissent argued the error was harmless):

​

The best evidence of the Legislature's intent is the text of the statute itself ... . Where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, a court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used ... .

 

CPL 270.15(1)(a) provides, in part, "the court shall direct that the names of not less than twelve members of the panel be drawn and called as prescribed by the judiciary law."

 

CPL 270.15(1-a) provides:

 

"The court may for good cause shown, upon motion of either party or any affected person or upon its own initiative, issue a protective order for a stated period regulating disclosure of the business or residential address of any prospective or sworn juror to any person or persons, other than to counsel for either party. Such good cause shall exist where the court determines that there is a likelihood of bribery, jury tampering or of physical injury or harassment of the juror."

 

Read together, these sections of CPL 270.15 prohibit a trial court from withholding the names of prospective jurors. The plain language of CPL 270.15(1)(a) provides that the names be called. CPL 270.15(1-a) allows for the issuance of a protective order regulating disclosure of addresses. It does not allow for the issuance of a protective order regulating disclosure of names. People v Flores, 2017 NY Slip Op 05457, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE, DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE,  DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)

 

CRIMINAL LAW.

​

DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.

​

The Second Department, reversing defendant's convictions, determined the "for cause" challenge to a juror should have been granted. Defendant was charged with offenses related to insurance fraud. The insurer was AIG. The prospective juror worked for AIG:

​

Here, during the first round of jury selection, prospective juror No. 16 indicated that she worked for AIG. Upon inquiry by the defendant, the prospective juror explained that her job involved analyzing the financial policies for three divisions at AIG: "[a]sset management, financial services, and domestic life." We note that, in response to the defendant's questions, the prospective juror did not provide a completely unequivocal assurance that she could be fair and impartial. She thought that she could be fair and impartial, but conceded that there "may be" a conflict of interest from the defendant's perspective, and that it might be better if she were on a different case so as to enable the defendant to feel "comfortable" that he "wouldn't be prejudiced in any way." Thereafter, the County Court denied the defendant's for-cause challenge without asking the prospective juror any questions about her employment at AIG or how it might affect her ability to serve as a juror, notwithstanding that the court had an obligation to try and determine "[a]ll issues of fact or law arising on the challenge" (CPL 270.20[2]).

 

Contrary to the County Court's determination, the prospective juror's professional relationship with AIG, her employer, rendered her unsuitable for jury service and necessitated her removal for cause (see CPL 270.20[1][c]... ). We note that AIG drafted and funded the insurance check underlying several counts of the indictment, and AIG was the named complainant in the count alleging insurance fraud in the third degree. Under all the circumstances, there was a considerable risk that the prospective juror could unwittingly give undue credence to witnesses from AIG and her service would give rise to the perception that the defendant did not receive a fair trial ... . People v Guldi, 2017 NY Slip Op 05459, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

​

 

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/RETRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, MANIFEST NECESSITY, MISTRIAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/MANIFEST NECESSITY (MISTRIAL, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)

 

CRIMINAL LAW.

​

COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT.

​

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge to which the previously tried (and reversed) case had been reassigned, did not, pursuant to the Judiciary Law, have the power to issue a verdict based upon a review of the transcript of the prior non-jury trial. Manifest necessity required a mistrial. New trial will not violate double jeopardy rule:

​

As is relevant here, Judiciary Law § 21 provides that a trial judge "shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he [or she] was not present and sitting therein as a judge." This statute has been interpreted to allow a substitute judge to preside over an already-commenced jury trial or decide a purely legal question, but it prohibits a substitute judge from weighing testimony or making factual and credibility determinations when he or she did not hear the witnesses' testimony firsthand .... .

 

Here, Judiciary Law § 21 precluded County Court from rendering a verdict inasmuch as this was a nonjury trial and, in deciding the ultimate issue of guilt, County Court was required to weigh testimony and make factual determinations based upon testimony it did not hear and observe ... . In view of the improper comments and actions of County Court ... that led to the case being reassigned after the close of proof, coupled with the application of Judiciary Law § 21, we find that a mistrial was manifestly necessary such that double jeopardy does not bar a retrial. Accordingly, we conclude that a new trial is warranted. People v Banks, 2017 NY Slip Op 05474, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/SPEEDY TRIAL (DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

​

CRIMINAL LAW.

​

DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

​

The Third Department determined the defendant's motion to dismiss based upon a speedy trial violation should not have been granted. The relevant period of postreadiness delay was due to motion practice by co-defendants and was therefore not chargeable to the People for any of the defendants:

​

The five codefendants who were named with defendant in the joint indictment were arrested and arraigned at various times. During the 27-day period that Supreme Court charged to the People as postreadiness delay, several of these codefendants were engaged in motion practice, including motions that were due but had not yet been filed, were awaiting the People's response, or were awaiting the court's decision. In a prosecution involving a single defendant, delay resulting from motion practice is not chargeable to the People (see CPL 30.30 [4] [a]...). Likewise, periods of delay that result from motion practice by any codefendant in a joint prosecution are excludable as to all of them ... . Defendant did not meet his burden to show that the delay resulting from his codefendants' motion practice was unreasonably lengthy or that the exclusion provided by CPL 30.30 (4) (d) should not be applied here for any other reason ... .

 

As the language of CPL 30.30 (4) (d) implies, a defendant's remedy for delays caused by codefendants in a joint prosecution is to move for severance. Here, although defendant was represented by counsel throughout the pertinent period, he neither moved for severance at any time nor showed that good cause for severance existed ... . Thus, the 27-day period charged by Supreme Court to the People as postreadiness delay should not have been added to the 163-day period of prereadiness delay, with the result that the People declared readiness within six months and complied with their statutory obligation. People v Chrysler, 2017 NY Slip Op 05477, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (A JURY'S FAILURE TO RENDER A VERDICT ON A COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ACQUITTAL ON THAT COUNT 4TH DEPT)/VERDICTS (CRIMINAL LAW, A JURY'S FAILURE TO RENDER A VERDICT ON A COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ACQUITTAL ON THAT COUNT 4TH DEPT)

 

CRIMINAL LAW.

​

A JURY'S FAILURE TO RENDER A VERDICT ON A COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ACQUITTAL ON THAT COUNT 4TH DEPT.

​

The Fourth Department noted that the absence of a verdict on a count of an indictment is the equivalent of an acquittal on that count:

​

Defendant contends that the judgment must be modified by reversing those parts convicting him under counts 9 and 10 of the indictment because he was not indicted in count 9, which charged two codefendants with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and the jury did not render a verdict on count 10. As the People correctly concede, defendant is correct. It is well settled that "[t]he New York State Constitution guarantees that [n]o person shall be held to answer for a[n] infamous crime . . . unless on indictment of a grand jury' " ... , and defendant was not charged in count 9 of the indictment. Although defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in count 10 of the indictment, the jury did not render a verdict on that count. It is well settled that a jury's failure to render a verdict upon every count upon which it was instructed to do so "constitutes an acquittal on every count on which no verdict was rendered"... . We therefore modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting defendant under counts 9 and 10, and by dismissing count 10 of the indictment with respect to defendant. People v Samuel, 2017 NY Slip Op 05542, 4th Dept 7-7-17

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW UP FOR A MAPP HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/ADJOURNMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW UP FOR A MAPP HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)

​

CRIMINAL LAW.

​

PEOPLE'S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW UP FOR A MAPP HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.

​

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court should have granted the People's request for an adjournment after two deputies did not show up for a Mapp hearing:

​

We agree with the People that the court erred in refusing to grant their request for an adjournment. It is well settled that "the decision to grant an adjournment is a matter of discretion for the hearing court"... . There are, however, well settled considerations to help guide a court in the exercise of its discretion. As relevant herein, for instance, "when [a] witness is identified to the court, and is to be found within the jurisdiction, a request for a short adjournment after a showing of some diligence and good faith should not be denied merely because of possible inconvenience to the court or others" ... . Additional relevant considerations in determining whether to grant a request for an adjournment include whether it was the moving party's first request, whether the subject witness or witnesses would offer material testimony favorable to that party, and the degree of prejudice to the nonmovant ... . Here, the deputies who conducted the warrantless search were under subpoena and were identified to the court. Contrary to defendant's contention, the court was entitled to rely on the prosecutor's representation in open court concerning the issuance of subpoenas inasmuch as a prosecutor is an officer of the court with an " unqualified duty of scrupulous candor' " ... . Moreover, the request was the People's first request for an adjournment, the testimony of the witnesses would be material and favorable to the People, and there was minimal prejudice to defendant, who had been released from custody on his own recognizance. In contrast, the People suffered severe prejudice because the refusal to grant an adjournment resulted in the suppression of all physical evidence. People v Schafer, 2017 NY Slip Op 05551, 4th Dept 7-7-17

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT)/APPEALS (SENTENCING, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT)/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS (FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT)

 

CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS.

​

FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RENDERED THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL, SENTENCE CANNOT STAND DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 4TH DEPT.

​

Although the issue was not raised on appeal, the Fourth Department determined the failure to follow the procedure for sentencing a second felony offender required resentencing:

​

We address the illegality of "the sentence . . . despite defendant's failure to raise the issue in the trial court or on appeal" ... . The presentence report available to the court and uncontested by the parties at sentencing indicates that defendant had been convicted of a prior felony for which he may have been sentenced within the 10-year period preceding commission of the first count of CSCS in the third degree, as tolled by Penal Law § 70.06 (1) (b) (v) and excluding from that statutory period the time during which defendant was incarcerated on the prior felony ... . Where, as here, "information available to the court or to the [P]eople prior to sentencing for a felony indicate[d] that . . . defendant may have previously been subjected to a predicate felony conviction" ... , "the People were required to file a second felony offender statement in accordance with CPL 400.21 and, if appropriate, the court was then required to sentence defendant as a second felony offender" ...  The People nevertheless failed to file a second felony offender statement herein, and the court illegally sentenced defendant, a known predicate felon, as a first felony drug offender ... . Moreover, as the People correctly concede, if defendant was properly sentenced as a first felony drug offender, the imposition of three years of postrelease supervision is illegal because the applicable period for such an offender upon conviction of a class B felony is "not less than one year and no more than two years" ... . Inasmuch as we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand, we modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed, and we remit the matter to County Court for the filing of a predicate felony offender statement and resentencing in accordance with the law. People v Mattice, 2017 NY Slip Op 05558, 4th Dept 7-7-17

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT)

 

CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS.

​

DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT.

​

The Third Department, reversing the convictions, determined defendant's request to represent himself should have been granted:

​

At an apppearance on May 19, 2014, defendant's counsel informed County Court (Drago, J.) that defendant wanted to represent himself at trial. The court duly inquired into defendant's educational background, which included a GED earned in 2003, and engaged in an extensive colloquy with defendant emphasizing the importance of having counsel represent him. During this exchange, when asked to explain his decision, defendant gave the extraordinary response, "I don't really have much explanation for it, just like I've been making bad choices, why not continue." Defendant then illogically acknowledged this was a bad choice on his part. County Court understandably encouraged defendant to reconsider his decision, and directed that a transcript of the proceeding be provided to the trial judge who would make the decision on the application.

 

When the trial began on May 27, 2014, County Court (Catena, J.), having reviewed the transcript, directly addressed the representation issue with defendant. Defendant elaborated that he had decided to represent himself because he had been unrepresented for the "first seven months of incarceration" and felt he had "a better chance of representing [himself]." He continued, "So I feel like nobody's going to fight for my life like I'm going to fight for it." After confirming that assigned counsel was prepared to go forward, County Court denied defendant's request to proceed pro se, reasoning that it would not be appropriate or a "wise choice" for defendant to do so. As understandable as that reasoning is, the issue is not whether defendant was making a prudent decision, but whether he had the capacity to knowingly waive his right to counsel ... .While defendant's initial extraordinary explanation raised a cause for concern, we conclude that his confirmation at trial demonstrates that he knowingly and unequivocally waived his right to counsel. Since defendant was improperly denied the right to proceed pro se, the judgment must be reversed and the matter remitted for a new trial ... . People v Curry, 2017 NY Slip Op 05475, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

​

​

 

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS.

​

MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT.

​

The Third Department determined defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant denied stealing the victim's wallet. The trial evidence indicated there were security cameras on businesses which may have captured the events, Defendant alleged his attorney did not make any effort to investigate whether videos existed and did not interview a man who was present during the incident:

​

... [W]e agree with defendant that he alleged certain "non-record facts" that "are material and, if established, . . . would entitle him to relief" so as to warrant a hearing ... . Defendant, in particular, averred that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to engage in needed discovery related to his claim that he did not take the victim's wallet. The trial evidence established that the incident occurred in an area surrounded by businesses with security cameras installed and that defense counsel was aware of this fact. Defense counsel, according to defendant, did not investigate whether those security cameras captured the incident on video prior to trial and did not obtain the footage to determine whether it undercut the victim's claim that defendant had robbed him. Defendant further noted that he was with another man when the incident occurred and alleged that defense counsel failed to interview that individual to learn whether his testimony would be helpful to the defense. If defense counsel failed without reason to investigate known proof that had the potential to corroborate defendant's account of events, it "may have amounted to less than meaningful representation"  ... . Inasmuch as those questions "cannot be determined on the motion papers, . . . we remit for a hearing where proof can be presented on" them ... . People v Cruz, 2017 NY Slip Op 05476, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

​

​

 

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT)/EVIDENCE (GRAND JURY, HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT)/GRAND JURY (EVIDENCE, HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT)/HATE CRIMES (GRAND JURY, HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT)

 

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE.

​

HATE CRIMES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UPON A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES 3RD DEPT.

​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined County Court should not have dismissed two hate crimes (attempted murder and assault) upon reading the grand jury minutes. Defendant, who is white, shot the victim, who is black, after a tirade of racial slurs:

​

Viewed most favorably to the People, the evidence before the grand jury provided a prima facie case of the hate crimes of attempted murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree. The foregoing testimony established that defendant repeatedly hurled several denigrating, racial slurs at the victim alone, whom he did not know, from the outset of the confrontation until the moment before he shot the victim at point blank range. Racial animosity and the use of epithets relating to a protected attribute, such as race, are probative of a defendant's motive and intent for purposes of proving a hate crime ... . The grand jury could have rationally inferred from this evidence — as well as the testimony that defendant had, just a half hour earlier, openly stated to another bar patron that he "hate[d] black people" — that the acts constituting the crimes at issue were motivated "in whole or in substantial part" by the victim's race (Penal Law § 485.05 [1] [b...). Because the grand jury could have rationally drawn the inference of guilt from this proof, the fact "'[t]hat other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from the facts is irrelevant'"... . Accordingly, we modify the judgment and reinstate counts 1 and 2 of the indictment. People v Spratley, 2017 NY Slip Op 05478, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTIFICATION, THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER'S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER'S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTIFICATION, THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER'S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER'S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER'S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER'S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT)/PHOTOGRAPHS (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTIFICATION,  THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER'S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER'S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT)

​

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE.

​

THE FAILURE TO PLACE THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLICE OFFICER'S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN EVIDENCE RENDERED THE OFFICER'S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY UNRELIABLE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 4TH DEPT.

​

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the identification testimony by a police officer was unreliable because the photograph upon which the officer's identification was based was not put in evidence at the hearing. A new trial was ordered. The dissent noted that this is the first case holding an identification unreliable where an unduly suggestive police identification procedure was not involved:

​

At the hearing, the People attempted to introduce in evidence a photograph that was allegedly used by the undercover officer. The court refused to admit the photograph in evidence, however, on the grounds that the People failed to produce it during discovery and that, in their discovery responses, the People expressly denied the existence of any photographs in the People's possession. Thus, the photograph, i.e., the linchpin to the undercover officer's identification of defendant, was not before the court, and we conclude that its absence created a presumption of unreliability in the pretrial identification of defendant by the undercover officer ... .

 

We further note that the People failed to adduce any evidence detailing the procedures used to obtain the photograph at issue ... . The undercover officer testified that he was given the name "Kevin Reeves" by a confidential informant. The confidential informant did not testify. Significantly, the officer could not recall if the confidential informant gave him any identifying factors about "Kevin Reeves" such as height, description, or skin color. The officer testified that he entered the name "Kevin Reeves" into a law enforcement computer database and that his search resulted in a photograph that he printed and viewed after the drug transaction. The officer did not testify, however, as to which search criteria he used, how many photos he viewed in response to his search criteria, and how he may have distinguished among more than one photograph generated by his search. As a result of the above shortcomings in the People's evidence, we conclude that the People failed to rebut the presumption of unreliability of the pretrial identification created by the absence of the photograph ... .

​

FROM THE DISSENT:

​

I do not believe that there is any legal basis to suppress identification testimony of a defendant based on the alleged unreliability of the witness's identification unless the identification is the product of unduly suggestive police procedures ... . Indeed, a suppression court is not required to make "a threshold inquiry into the reliability of . . . identification testimony" ... , and "the reliability of untainted in-court identification testimony presents an issue of fact for jury resolution' "... .

 

This is the first reported case in New York where identification testimony has been suppressed in the absence of a finding that the identification was influenced by unduly suggestive police procedures. People v Reeves, 2017 NY Slip Op 05526, 4th Dept 7-7-17

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOP, SUPPRESSION, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT'S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/STREET STOPS (SUPPRESSION, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT'S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (STREET STOP, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT'S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/TRAFFIC STOPS (SUPPRESSION, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT'S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/DE BOUR (LEVEL TWO INQUIRY, TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT'S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)

​

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE.

​

TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT'S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.

​

​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant's conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the trooper who stopped defendant's vehicle did not have a founded suspicion of criminal activity at the time the trooper asked questions which amounted to a De Bour level two inquiry:

​

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of possessing or transporting 30,000 or more unstamped cigarettes ... . When a State Trooper pulled over defendant for speeding on Interstate 81, he noticed "several large nylon bags" with "square edged contours" filling the area behind the driver's seat. The Trooper initially asked defendant what was inside the bags, i.e., whether there was luggage in the bags, and defendant gave a series of increasingly implausible answers, including "clothing," "presents," "riding toys," and "bicycles." Defendant asked if he could leave, but the Trooper instead requested that he exit the vehicle while the Trooper spoke to two passengers. When the Trooper returned to speak to defendant, but before he advised defendant of his Miranda rights, defendant admitted that the bags contained nearly 300 cartons of untaxed cigarettes purchased from an Indian reservation.

​

We conclude that the court erred in refusing to suppress the physical evidence and statements at issue. Contrary to defendant's contention, however, our rationale is not grounded in custody and/or Miranda issues. "In light of the heightened dangers faced by investigating police officers during traffic stops, a police officer may, as a precautionary measure and without particularized suspicion, direct the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle to step out of the car" ... . Here, defendant was not in custody during his temporary roadside detention, and it was permissible for the Trooper to engage in a reasonable interrogation of defendant without first advising him of his Miranda rights ... .

 

We conclude, however, that the Trooper's initial inquiry concerning the contents of the bags constituted a level two common-law inquiry, which required a founded suspicion of criminality that was not present at the time ... . Indeed, we note that nervousness, fidgeting, and illogical or contradictory responses to level one inquiries do not permit an officer to escalate an encounter to a level two De Bour confrontation ... . Here, the facts are even more strongly in favor of defendant inasmuch as defendant's evasive and inconsistent answers were themselves induced by a level two inquiry from the Trooper. Because a founded suspicion of criminality did not arise until after the Trooper asked defendant what was inside the bags, the court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence. People v Gates, 2017 NY Slip Op 05549, 4th Dept 7-7-17

​

​