​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW.

​

UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE WAIVER HERE INCLUDED ONLY THE DAY OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (THIRD DEPT).

​

The Third Department determined the waiver of indictment was invalid because it did not include the approximate time of the offense. The court noted that the time allegations required for an indictment do not include the approximate time of the offense, but the approximate time must be included in a waiver of indictment:

​

Courts have held that "[w]hen time is not an essential element of an offense, the indictment, as supplemented by a bill of particulars, may allege the time in approximate terms. The indictment must, however, set forth a time interval which reasonably serves the function of protecting defendant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, so as to enable the defendant to prepare a defense and to use the judgment against further prosecution for the same crime" ... . Those cases deal with indictments, however, not waivers of indictment. Pursuant to the statute, an indictment must include a statement "that the offense charged therein was committed on, or on or about, a designated date, or during a designated period of time" (CPL 200.50 [6]), whereas CPL 195.20 requires that waivers of indictment include the offense's "date and approximate time" ... . "[I]n the interpretation of a statute[,] we must assume that the Legislature did not deliberately place a phrase in the statute which was intended to serve no purpose[,] and each word must be read and given a distinct and consistent meaning" ... . Simply stating that the offense occurred on, or on or about, a specified date or within a range of time (such as a certain week, month or span of months) may meet the statutory requirements for an indictment ... , but is insufficient to meet CPL 195.20's additional "approximate time" requirement for a waiver of indictment ... . Any other interpretation would render the statute's language requiring the "approximate time" superfluous or redundant. People v Busch-Scardino, 2018 NY Slip Op 07979, Third Dept 11-21-18

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW (UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE WAIVER HERE INCLUDED ONLY THE DAY OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (THIRD DEPT))/WAIVER OF INDICTMENT  (UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE WAIVER HERE INCLUDED ONLY THE DAY OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (THIRD DEPT))/TIME (WAIVER OF INDICTMENT, UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE WAIVER HERE INCLUDED ONLY THE DAY OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (THIRD DEPT))

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS.

​

DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME AND THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY, THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

​

The Third Department, vacating defendant's plea, determined that the court should have conducted further inquiry after defendant, during the plea colloquy, made a statement about the age of the victim which negated an element of the crime. The error triggered the narrow exception to the preservation requirement:

​

Defendant contends that the plea must be vacated because he negated an essential element of the crime at sentencing. Although the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion in order to preserve this issue for our review, we find that a statement made by defendant at sentencing cast doubt upon his guilt and, therefore, triggered "the narrow exception to the preservation requirement and impos[ed] a duty upon County Court 'to inquire further to ensure that defendant's guilty plea [was] knowing and voluntary'" ... . "[S]tatements made by a defendant that negate an element of the crime to which a plea has been entered . . . or otherwise suggest an involuntary plea require[s] the trial court to then conduct a further inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea" ... .

​

At sentencing, defendant stated that the sexual conduct started when the victim was 13 years old, not 12 years old. Such statement by defendant negated the element of predatory sexual assault against a child in the first degree that requires that the victim be under the age of 13 (see Penal Law § 130.96). Notwithstanding defendant's statement, County Court did not make any further inquiry or give defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea prior to proceeding to sentencing. People v Brassard, 2018 NY Slip Op 07978, Third Dept 11-21-18

​

CRIMINAL LAW (DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME AND THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY, THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME AND THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY, THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/PLEA COLLOQUY  (DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME AND THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY, THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT))

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE.

​

DEFENDANT DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE RECORDING OF PHONE CALLS MADE FROM JAIL AND TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE RECORDINGS AS TRIAL EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

​

The First Department determined the defendant's request to preclude recording of phone calls he made from jail was properly denied. Defendant was deemed to have consented to the recordings:

​

"Defendant impliedly consented to the recording of the call(s) based on his receipt of multiple forms of notice that his calls would be recorded, and he was not entitled to separate notice that the calls might be subpoenaed by prosecutors" ... . People v Mason, 2018 NY Slip Op 07944, First Dept 11-20-18

​

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE RECORDING OF PHONE CALLS MADE FROM JAIL AND TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE RECORDINGS AS TRIAL EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PHONE CALLS FROM JAIL, DEFENDANT DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE RECORDING OF PHONE CALLS MADE FROM JAIL AND TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE RECORDINGS AS TRIAL EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/PHONE CALLS (CRIMINAL LAW, JAIL,  DEFENDANT DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE RECORDING OF PHONE CALLS MADE FROM JAIL AND TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE RECORDINGS AS TRIAL EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/RECORDINGS (PHONE CALL, JAIL, CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE RECORDING OF PHONE CALLS MADE FROM JAIL AND TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE RECORDINGS AS TRIAL EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE.

​

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT).

​

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly suppressed evidence seized at the time of the illegal arrest, as well as the subsequent lineup identification:

​

... [A]t the time of the gunpoint seizure of the two defendants, the police had an anonymous tip that an undescribed suspect or suspects had burglarized an unspecified apartment on the sixth floor of a building, they spoke to building residents who reported noise on that floor, and they saw defendants leaving an apartment on that floor carrying undescribed bags. The totality of this information failed to provide reasonable suspicion to support an immediate forcible seizure without any inquiry. The police learned additional information, but only after the unlawful seizure.

 

Therefore, the court properly suppressed all physical evidence as fruit of the illegality. Furthermore, the court also granted suppression, independently of the initial illegality, because the witness's recollection about the subsequent search of the contents of the bags, and about the recovery of gloves from the hallway floor, was so limited that the People did not meet their initial burden of coming forward with credible evidence to establish either a search of the bags incident to a lawful arrest or the abandonment of the gloves ... . 

 

The record also supports the court's determination to suppress an officer's lineup identification of [defendant] Salkey, who had fled the scene, as the unattenuated fruit of the unlawful stop and frisk ... . The vague testimony provided no explanation of how Salkey came to be placed in a lineup, and no basis for finding attenuation from the initial illegality. People v Brown, 2018 NY Slip Op 07956, First Dept 11-20-18

​

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPRESSION  (CRIMINAL LAW,  SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW,  SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT))/LINEUPS (CRIMINAL LAW,  SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT))/IDENTIFICATION (LINEUPS, (CRIMINAL LAW,  SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE GUNPOINT ARREST UNLAWFUL AND PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE SEIZED ITEMS AND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION (FIRST DEPT))

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, APPEALS.

​

TESTIMONY OF SOLE EYEWITNESS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AND UNRELIABLE, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT).

​

The Second Department, reversing defendant's manslaughter conviction under a weight of the evidence analysis, determined that the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Geroulakis, was incredible and unreliable:

​

On cross-examination, Geroulakis's testimony was incredible and unreliable. Geroulakis denied that, at the first trial, he had identified the defendant as the shorter man at the souvlaki stand. When Geroulakis was confronted with his testimony from the first trial, he responded, "I remember they told me who is who, who stabbed me and who stabbed Jimmy." Significantly, investigating detective Robert W. Henning testified that Geroulakis told him that he had argued with the shorter man, that they pushed and shoved each other, that the man "pulled out a knife" and stabbed Geroulakis "in the right thigh area" and then walked over to the car, reached in, and "stabbed [Zisimopoulos] in the abdomen." After reading his interview notes, Henning confirmed that Geroulakis stated that the same person stabbed both Geroulakis and Zisimopoulos. Furthermore, on cross-examination, Geroulakis testified that he did not remember what the man whom he identified as the defendant was wearing and denied previously describing the man as wearing a long-sleeved black shirt. Geroulakis recalled telling a detective only that "some were wearing black and one was wearing long sleeves." Geroulakis acknowledged that, in 2009, he had testified that the taller man wore a black shirt with long sleeves. A video-still from one of the clubs that the defendant visited in the early morning of the day of the incident revealed that the defendant was wearing a light-colored shirt with horizontal stripes and sleeves to the elbows. In addition, Detective Constantine Papadopoulos testified that the defendant had the same tattoo on his right arm at the time of trial that he had at the lineup, and Detective David Beutel testified that the defendant had tattoos on both of his arms. Geroulakis, however, testified that the arms of the two men who allegedly stabbed Zisimopoulos were bare and that he did not observe any tattoos.

 

Moreover, Geroulakis's motive to identify the defendant as one of the people who stabbed Zisimopoulos is apparent from his exaggerated testimony at the second trial. It was only at second trial, nine years after the incident, that Geroulakis testified that he had observed the defendant, the taller of the two men, twice: once at the souvlaki stand and once by the car at the time of the stabbings. On cross-examination, however, Geroulakis admitted that, at the first trial, he stated that he recognized only the shorter man from the souvlaki stand, not the defendant. Despite this admission, Geroulakis continued to insist at the second trial that both the defendant and the shorter man were at the souvlaki stand.

 

Based on the weight of the credible evidence, we find that the jury was not justified in finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt ... . People v Andujar, 2018 NY Slip Op 08028, Second Dept 11-21-18

​

CRIMINAL LAW (TESTIMONY OF SOLE EYEWITNESS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AND UNRELIABLE, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, TESTIMONY OF SOLE EYEWITNESS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AND UNRELIABLE, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY OF SOLE EYEWITNESS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AND UNRELIABLE, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY OF SOLE EYEWITNESS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AND UNRELIABLE, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, ATTORNEYS.

​

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

​

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should have held a hearing on defendant's motion to vacate his conviction alleging ineffective assistance counsel. i.e., the failure to move to dismiss the indictment based on a speedy trial violation. Although the People raised a question of fact about whether defendant's counsel consented to certain adjournments, the issue was not conclusively demonstrated, requiring a hearing:

​

Defendant argued that he was deprived of effective assistance because his counsel failed to move to dismiss the indictment based on a violation of his statutory speedy trial rights. Failure to make a meritorious speedy trial motion, which would result in dismissal of the indictment, is sufficiently egregious to amount to ineffective assistance... . There is ordinarily no strategic reason for counsel to fail to make a dispositive motion that would result in dismissal of the charges with prejudice, so long as it is shown that the motion would have been successful ... . ...

​

The Court of Appeals has clarified that " [a]djournments consented to by the defense must be clearly expressed to relieve the People of the responsibility for that portion of the delay. Defense counsel's failure to object to the adjournment or failure to appear does not constitute consent" ... A court may not deny a motion to dismiss for a statutory speedy trial violation "without a hearing unless '[a]n allegation of fact essential to support the motion is conclusively refuted by unquestionable proof'" ... . " Of course, only those periods for which the People have not provided 'unquestionable documentary proof' — for example, a transcript or letter evidencing defendant's consent — need be addressed at any hearing" ... . At least one court has held that calendar and file jacket notations" do not constitute unquestionable proof to meet the People's "burden of demonstrating sufficient excludable time" ... . People v Matteson, 2018 NY Slip Op 07976, Third Dept 11-21-18

​

CRIMINAL LAW (VACATE CONVICTION, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (VACATE CONVICTION, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, (VACATE CONVICTION, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO ( THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/SPEEDY TRIAL (VACATE CONVICTION,  THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, APPEALS.

​

RESISTING ARREST COUNT RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY TRIAL TESTIMONY, UNPRESERVED ERROR CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RESISTING ARREST CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

​

The Third Department, reversing defendant's resisting arrest conviction, determined that the trial evidence rendered the resisting arrest count of the indictment duplicitous. At trial evidence of two separate circumstance where defendant was alleged to have resisted arrest, involving different police officers, was presented. Although the error was not preserved, the court considered the issue under its interest of justice jurisdiction:

​

"Even if a count facially charges one criminal act, that count is duplicitous if the evidence makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict" ... . The indictment charged defendant with one count of resisting arrest. According to the record evidence, however, the jury was presented with two instances where defendant resisted an officer's arrest — one involving the victim that turned violent and the other involving the officers who discovered him in the dumpster. We also note that, during deliberation, the jury asked whether it could consider the incident at the dumpster with respect to the resisting arrest charge or solely defendant's encounter with the victim. In our view, Supreme Court's response in rereading count 5 of the indictment failed to dispel any confusion by the jury... . Although this argument is unpreserved for review, we take corrective action in the interest of justice by dismissing count 5 of the indictment with leave to the People to re-present any appropriate charges to a new grand jury ... . People v Hilton. 2018 NY Slip Op 07981, Third Dept 11-21-18

​

CRIMINAL LAW (RESISTING ARREST COUNT RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY TRIAL TESTIMONY, UNPRESERVED ERROR CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RESISTING ARREST CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RESISTING ARREST COUNT RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY TRIAL TESTIMONY, UNPRESERVED ERROR CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RESISTING ARREST CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, RESISTING ARREST COUNT RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY TRIAL TESTIMONY, UNPRESERVED ERROR CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RESISTING ARREST CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (RESISTING ARREST COUNT RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY TRIAL TESTIMONY, UNPRESERVED ERROR CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RESISTING ARREST CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/DUPLICITOUS (CRIMINAL LAW, RESISTING ARREST COUNT RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY TRIAL TESTIMONY, UNPRESERVED ERROR CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RESISTING ARREST CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, ATTORNEYS, AGENCY.

​

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT).

​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, determined defendant, an inmate, did not present sufficient proof that Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) personnel acted as agents for the police when investigating a killing in the prison. Defendant alleged that inmates were coerced into testifying against him and evidence of the coercion was Brady material which should have been provided to the defense by the prosecutor. The Third Department found defendant had not met his burden of proof concerning whether the DOCS personnel were acting as agents for the police. Rather, there was evidence that the DOCS investigation and the police investigation were separate and had different purposes. Therefore defendant's motion to vacate his conviction was properly denied:

​

Several cases have held that "[e]vidence gathered by prison staff . . . generally is not 'under the control or in the possession of the People or its agents, but [is] instead in the possession of an administrative agency that was not performing law enforcement functions'"... . That said, whether knowledge of a government official or employee may be imputed to the People appears to turn on whether participation in the criminal probe was an ancillary law enforcement task... or whether the level of cooperation between the employee and law enforcement in a particular criminal investigation renders the employee an agent of the People ... . Under agency principles, "acts of agents, and the knowledge they acquire while acting within the scope of their authority are presumptively imputed to their principals"... . For example, "[w]hile social workers are generally not agents of the police," in situations where they engage in a "joint venture" with police agencies to collaborate on child abuse or sexual abuse investigations, share information and a common purpose, and have a "cooperative working arrangement" with police, an agency relationship may exist such that the social workers' knowledge is imputed to the People ... . ...

​

... [I]t appears that the State Police and IG [the DOCS Investigator General] were conducting parallel investigations — one criminal and one administrative, albeit with some obvious and necessary overlap — addressing different aspects of the situation... . The report from the lead IG investigator — who was not called to testify — reveals that he interviewed inmates with the State Police, gathered information for two months after the incident, conferred with State Police and met with the District Attorney. But the report indicates that the IG closed its case six months before defendant's criminal trial, based on a finding that there was no evidence of staff misconduct, indicating the administrative focus of the IG's investigation. People v Lewis, 2018 NY Slip Op 07980, Third Dept 11-21-18

​

CRIMINAL LAW (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORS, BRADY MATERIAL, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))/BRADY MATERIAL (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))/AGENCY (CRIMINAL LAW, JOINT INVESTIGATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO  (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT))

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

​

THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the denial of defendant's request to present an alibi witness was reversible error, despite the fact that a notice of alibi had not been served. The People had opened the door at trial, creating the need to call the alibi witness:

​

Pursuant to CPL 250.20 (3), "[i]f at the trial the defendant calls such an alibi witness without having served the demanded notice of alibi, . . . the court may exclude any testimony of such witness relating to the alibi defense." Precluding a criminal defendant from proffering evidence in support of his or her own case implicates the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment... , and, although CPL 250.20 (3) explicitly states that the trial court's decision to permit a late notice of alibi is discretionary, preclusion is only an appropriate penalty "in the most egregious circumstances"... . When a defendant's "omission was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage that would minimize the effectiveness of cross-examination and the ability to adduce rebuttal evidence, it would be entirely consistent with the purposes of the Compulsory Process Clause simply to exclude the witness'[s] testimony"... .

​

... [A]lthough defendant did not serve an alibi notice in response to the People's demand for same, defendant did not intend to call an alibi witness except that the People — knowing that defendant had testified to having an alibi during the grand jury but that he had not presented that defense at trial — directly elicited testimony ... about what defendant was doing on the night of the shooting. In response to follow-up questions by the People, [the witness] provided the alibi witness's first name and generally discussed that defendant was friends with this person. The People's question regarding what defendant was doing the night of the shooting was the first reference to defendant's alibi during the trial, and defendant thereafter sought permission to call his friend ... as a witness for the first time. The People, despite raising and pursuing this line of questioning, objected because defendant had not served an alibi notice. Defendant argued that the People opened the door and created the issue and, as a result, defendant should not be precluded from calling Steward. We agree. People v Perkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 07972, Third Dept 11-21-18

​

CRIMINAL LAW (THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALIBI WITNESS, (THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE, THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALIBI WITNESS, THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/ALIBI WITNESS (THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CRIMINAL LAW, IMMIGRATION LAW, ATTORNEYS.

​

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined that defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. Defendant's affidavit raised sufficient factual questions which could not be answered from the record to warrant a hearing. Defendant alleged he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the marijuana conviction:

​

"Although a hearing on a CPL 440.10 motion is not always necessary, a hearing is required where the defendant bases the motion upon nonrecord facts that are material and, if established, would entitle the defendant to relief"... . In support of his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant tendered his own affidavit, wherein he asserted that he had completed his prison sentence and period of postrelease supervision and that he was being held at a federal detention facility pending deportation proceedings. He stated that trial counsel failed to inform him of the immigration consequences of being convicted as charged and that, had he been so informed, he would have asked trial counsel "to explore the possibility of a plea bargain rather than take the case to trial, even though [he] continued to maintain [his] innocence." He further stated that trial counsel's failure to present him with any plea offer, or to inform him of potential deportation consequences, "caused [him] to forgo any discussion of a plea bargain." People v Blackman, 2018 NY Slip Op 07982, Third Dept 11-21-18

​

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE  (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO  (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))

​

​