CRIMINAL LAW

 

8-Hour Break in 49 ½ Hour Interrogation Did Not Render Confession Voluntary

 

In a full-fledged opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined an 8-hour break and the presence of counsel, after a 491/2-hour custodial interrogation, did not render his confession to murder voluntary and reversed his conviction:

 

We are unwilling to draw the inference, which the People would have us make, that the eight-hour "break" between interrogation and arraignment attenuated the taint of the wrongful interrogation. Defendant's pre- and post-arraignment statements were, despite their temporal separation, in all other ways seamlessly linked. At the end of the marathon session, the utterly spent defendant, in exchange for a lawyer to which he was absolutely entitled, agreed in a statement ultimately suppressed as coerced, to "give everybody what they want," and when he returned to the Blue Room on the morning of the same day and faced the same interrogator across the same table, that is exactly what he did. We do not accept the hypothesis that his intervening stay in a holding pen and arraignment on the charge of murder sufficed to transform his coerced capitulation into a voluntary disclosure. By the time of defendant's post-arraignment statements, his options would have seemed so constricted, by what he had already divulged during the earlier portion of the interrogation, as to render the intervening temporal buffer practically irrelevant. …

 

…[W]e reject the contention that the entry of counsel guaranteed the voluntariness of defendant's subsequent statements …. This contention misconstrues the statement in Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 [1966]) that "[t]he presence of counsel, in all the cases before us today, would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self incrimination]. His presence would insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion" (id. at 466 [emphasis supplied]). Plainly, this language, expressly limited in its reference, was not intended to stand for the proposition that the presence of counsel will invariably be adequate as an assurance of voluntariness.  People v Guilford, No 103, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

 

Failure to Investigate Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

 

In affirming the vacation of defendant’s conviction, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel.  The People’s case rested on the defendant’s statement.  The defense was based on the defendant’s mental weakness, which undermined the voluntariness of the statement.  Yet the defense attorney did not investigate critical documents relevant to the defendant’s mental condition. The Court of Appeals wrote:

 

The record reveals that trial counsel sought to build a defense based on defendant's mental weakness undermining the voluntariness of his admissions of guilt. Despite the focus on defendant's mental abilities, trial counsel chose to forgo any investigation of the critical documents concerning defendant's mental condition, and instead, sought to present this defense through the testimony of defendant's mother, an obviously biased witness. Regardless of whether the decision to present defendant's condition through his mother's testimony was a valid strategy, it was, as trial counsel admitted at the post-conviction hearing, a "strategy" "born in the blind." One he admittedly pursued without benefit of the contents of defendant's records.
 

This is not simply a case of a failed trial strategy …. Rather, this is a case of a lawyer's failure to pursue the minimal investigation required under the circumstances. Given that the People's case rested almost entirely on defendant's inculpatory statements, trial counsel's ability to undermine the voluntariness of those statements was crucial. The strategy to present defendant's mental capacity and susceptibility to police interrogation could only be fully developed after counsel's investigation of the facts and law, which required review of records that would reveal and explain defendant's mental illness history, and defendant's diagnosis supporting his receipt of federal SSI benefits.  People v Oliveras, No 105, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

 

Potential Versus Actual Conflict of Interest

 

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction, rejecting the defendant’s argument he had been denied effective assistance of counsel because of defense counsel’s conflict of interest.  The Court of Appeals described the difference between an actual conflict of interest (which mandates reversal if not waived) and a potential conflict of interest (at issue in this case):

 

The defendant bears the burden of establishing a denial of meaningful representation …. When such a claim is premised on a perceived conflict of interest, our precedent differentiates between actual and potential conflicts …. An actual conflict exists if an attorney simultaneously represents clients whose interests are opposed …and, in such situations, reversal is required if the defendant does not waive the actual conflict ….

 

In contrast, a potential conflict that is not waived by the accused requires reversal only if it "operates" on or "affects" the defense … -- i.e., the nature of the attorney-client relationship or underlying circumstances bear a "'substantial relation to the conduct of the defense'" …. The "requirement that a potential conflict have affected, or operated on, or borne a substantial relation to the conduct of the defense -- three formulations of the same principle -- is not a requirement that [the] defendant show specific prejudice" …. Nevertheless, it is the defendant's "heavy burden" … to show that a potential conflict actually operated on the defense ….  People v Sanchez, No 107, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

 

No Need to Request Missing Witness Charge to Argue Absence of Witness to Jury

 

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined the trial court erred in ruling defense counsel could not argue to the jury that a witness should have been called by the People because defense counsel did not request a missing witness charge (the error was, however, deemed harmless).  The complainant’s statement did not mention an anal penetration which was the subject of trial evidence. When asked why the incident was not mentioned in the statement, the complainant said the police officer taking the statement told her no judge would believe that happened.  The officer did not testify.  The Court of Appeals wrote:

 

In his summation, defense counsel argued that this part of the complainant's testimony was incredible. "We've changed as a society," he argued. "No police officer is going to come up there and say, 'Oh, no one is going to believe you, this was your boyfriend.' That's not where we are today." That part of his argument drew no objection. But the prosecutor did object when counsel added: "And if that's, in fact, what that police officer said, then where was he, where was that police officer on the stand to say: You know what, I didn't write it down. I didn't think she was telling me the truth. He didn't testify to that." The trial court sustained the objection and directed the jury to disregard counsel's comment. Counsel tried again to make the missing witness argument, with the same result. 

 

After summations, defendant moved for a mistrial on the basis of this ruling. The court denied the motion, saying that counsel should have asked for a missing witness instruction if he wanted to make a missing witness argument… .

 

The courts below clearly erred in holding that defense counsel's missing witness argument was improper. The trial court's theory, that a request for a missing witness instruction is a prerequisite to a missing witness argument is, as the Appellate Division recognized, flatly contrary to what we said in Williams (5 NY3d at 734). The Appellate Division affirmed on the alternative grounds that the officer's testimony may have been cumulative and defendant failed to make an offer of proof. This approach may have been impermissible under People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470 [1998]) and People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192 [2011]).

 

Just before making the missing witness argument, counsel had attacked as incredible the complainant's uncorroborated testimony as to what the officer said to her; confirmation of that testimony from the officer would not have been cumulative ….. And counsel had no obligation to make an offer of proof as a predicate for a missing witness argument. It is a premise of such an argument, as it is of a missing witness instruction, that the witness is in the control of the party that failed to call him … A party making such an argument, like one requesting such an instruction, "can hardly know what [the] witness knows or what the witness would say if called" ... .  People v Thomas, No 108, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

 

Introduction of Statements Made to Police In Absence of Counsel When Defendant Was Represented by Counsel on a Another Matter Deemed Harmless Error

 

The Court of Appeals determined that defendant’s murder conviction should stand, even though he was questioned in violation of his right to counsel:

 

While in jail for a violation of probation (VOP), defendant was twice questioned by police about the victim's disappearance, the second time after her body had been discovered. Counsel was not present. Defendant claims that his constitutional right to counsel was violated because he was represented by counsel on the VOP at the time, as evidenced by the notation made on an arraignment memorandum by the Town Justice who arraigned him on the VOP.

 

Assuming, without deciding, that defendant's indelible right to counsel was violated, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt…. There is no reasonable possibility that the introduction of the two challenged statements affected defendant's conviction in view of the other evidence, including two counseled statements to police and testimony of numerous witnesses, that overwhelmingly established his guilt.  People v Augustine, No 109, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

 

Inventory Search Which Included Removal of Seat Panels and Speakers Okay

 

Over a substantial dissent by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Piggot, determined a vehicle search after a DWI arrest, in which an illegal weapon was found, was a valid inventory search.  The defendant had argued that the removal of seat panels that were askew and a speaker system demonstrated that the search was not a inventory search because the search was focused on finding contraband:

 

Following a lawful arrest of a driver of a vehicle that is required to be impounded, the police may conduct an inventory search of the vehicle. The search is "designed to properly catalogue the contents of the item searched" …. However, an inventory search must not be "a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence" …. To guard against this danger, the search must be conducted pursuant to an established procedure "clearly limiting the conduct of individual officers that assures that the searches are carried out consistently and reasonably" …. "While incriminating evidence may be a consequence of an inventory search, it should not be its purpose" …. The People bear the burden of demonstrating the validity of the inventory search ….

 

Here the People proffered written guidelines, the officer's testimony regarding his search of the vehicle, and the resulting list of items retained. Although defendant takes issue with the officer's removal of the speakers by arguing that such action was a ruse designed to search for drugs, the officer’s testimony that it was police protocol to remove any owner-installed equipment, was accepted by the hearing court and we perceive no grounds upon which to overturn that determination. * * *

 

It was reasonable for the officer to check in the seat panels that were askew as part of his inventory. The fact that the officer knew that contraband is often hidden by criminals in the panels did not invalidate the entire search… .  People v Padilla, No 114, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

 

Failure to Prove Defendant Did Not Have a Good Faith Belief He Had a Claim of Right to Property Precluded Larceny Conviction

 

The Fourth Department determined there was insufficient evidence to support a grand larceny charge based upon the defendant’s taking a jeep from his girlfriend’s residence.  Prior to defendant’s taking the jeep, his girlfriend had agreed to transfer it to him---an offer she subsequently told defendant was “off:” The Fourth Department held the People had not proven the defendant did not have a good faith belief that he had a claim of right to the jeep:

 

It is well established that “a good faith claim of right is properly a defense—not an affirmative defense—and thus, ‘the people have the burden of disproving such defense beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” … .A defendant is not required to “establish that he previously owned or possessed the property at issue in order to assert the claim of right defense” …. The test is whether a defendant had a “subjective[,] good faith” belief that he or she had a claim of right to the relevant property, not whether defendant’s belief was reasonable … . Based on the testimony of defendant’s former girlfriend, which is the only evidence that relates to the claim of right issue, we conclude that it was unreasonable for the jury to conclude that the People established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not have a subjective, good faith basis for believing that the Jeep was his, and thus the verdict with respect to the grand larceny in the fourth degree count is against the weight of the evidence ….  People v Rios, 223, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

 

Conviction Reversed Because Uncharged Theory Considered by Jury

 

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction for criminal impersonation because the jury was allowed to consider a theory of prosecution that was not charged:

 

…[T]he court’s jury instructions with respect to the crime of criminal impersonation in the first degree permitted the jury to convict him upon a theory not charged in the indictment, and thus violated his right to be tried for only those crimes charged in the indictment, as limited by the bill of particulars …. …[W]e address defendant’s contention despite his failure to preserve it for our review … . The fifth count of the indictment alleged that defendant committed the crime of criminal impersonation when he pretended to be a police officer and, “in the course of such pretense, committed or attempted to commit the felony of [r]ape in the first degree.”    The court’s instructions, however, permitted the jury to convict defendant upon finding that he committed any felony in the course of pretending to be a police officer, thus allowing the jury to convict defendant upon a theory not charged in the indictment.  People v Williams, 340, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

 

People Did Not Meet Burden of Going Forward at Suppression Hearing

 

The Fourth Department determined the People did not meet their “burden of going forward” at the suppression hearing and suppressed the evidence seized from the defendant.  After an anonymous call describing a person who looked nothing at all like the defendant, the police approached, detained and searched the defendant:

 

The officer who approached defendant testified at the suppression hearing that he asked defendant to step away from a group of individuals with whom defendant was socializing.  The officer escorted defendant to the curb while physically holding defendant’s waistband, and he instructed defendant to face the street and to place his hands on the roof of a civilian vehicle.  The officer testified that at that time defendant was not free to leave.  Having detained defendant in that manner, the officer then explained to defendant the reason for the police presence.  The officer asked defendant if he had any contraband and if defendant would consent to a search of his person.  Defendant consented to the search, during which the police obtained the physical evidence sought to be suppressed.  In light of the fact that defendant was illegally detained, i.e., without a reasonable suspicion that he was committing or had committed a crime (see CPL 140.50 [1]), his consent to the search immediately thereafter cannot be considered voluntary ….

 

Although “ ‘a defendant who challenges the legality of a search and seizure has the burden of proving illegality, the People are nevertheless put to the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance’ ” ….  We agree with defendant that the People failed to meet that burden.  People v Noah, 414, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

 

Parole Violation Did Not Preclude Application for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act

 

The Fourth Department determined County Court erred when it denied defendant’s application for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act on the ground defendant was a reincarcerated parole violator.  Nor did it matter that defendant was released from parole supervision after he made the application.  People v Saffold, 666, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

 

Initial Detention at Gun-Point Was Not an Illegal Arrest
 

The Third Department determined that the initial detention of the defendant by the police, with guns drawn, did not amount to an illegal arrest:

 

Given the extremely short period of time between the report of the armed robbery and the arrival of the officers on the scene, defendant's presence alongside the residence and the absence of any other individual in the vicinity, the officers were justified in forcibly detaining defendant in order to quickly confirm or dispel their reasonable suspicion of defendant's possible involvement in the armed robbery… . Furthermore, defendant was informed that he was being detained, was not questioned during that period of time and was held at the crime scene in order to effectuate showups by the victims of the robbery… .  People v Stroman, 103148B, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

 

Duplicitous Counts Dismissed Because Jury Could Not Connect Evidence with Specific Counts

 

The Third Department determined several counts of reckless endangerment were duplicitous because there was no way for the jury to match each count with specific conduct by the defendant:

 

Here, County Court found that the original indictment, which included seven counts of reckless endangerment, did not provide sufficient information to  enable  defendant  to  distinguish each count. Rather than identify each count temporally or by physical evidence, the People sought to remedy the defect by providing the name of an intended victim for each count. However, reckless endangerment is a conduct-specific, rather than a victim-specific, crime….  Thus, despite the amendment, the conduct underlying each count of the indictment remained unclear, as none of the seven shots fired hit any of the individuals named in the indictment.  As a result, there is simply no way to match each count of the indictment with the specific underlying conduct of defendant that would insure that the jury had reached a unanimous verdict with regard to each count and,  therefore, the  reckless endangerment  counts  must  be dismissed as duplicitous… .  People v Estella, 103574, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

 

Waiver of Appeal Not Sufficient

 

The Third Department determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal, which included a written waiver, was not sufficient because it was not clear he understood the waiver was separate and distinct from the rights given up by the guilty plea.  The defendant was 21 years old, had no prior criminal history and had some mental health problems.  The Third Department wrote:

 

…[T]he court did not ensure that "defendant ha[d] 'a full appreciation of the consequences' of such waiver"…, which requires record proof that the defendant "comprehend[s] that an  appeal waiver 'is separate and  distinct from  those rights automatically forfeited upon  a plea of guilty'"….  This was  especially important considering defendant's age, mental health history and lack of prior criminal history; defendant was 19 years old at the time of the crime and 21 at the time of sentencing, had  been diagnosed and  had  ongoing problems with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, past history of suicidal ideation, bipolar disorder, a possible learning disorder and  a significant history of acting out on  impulse.  The written waiver also failed to explain the separate and distinct nature of the right being waived.  As it is not evident on the face of the record that defendant was  aware  of this separate and  distinct nature, we cannot be sure that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly and intelligently made… .  People v Bouton, 103593B, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

 

SORA Determination without Board Recommendation Okay When Defendant Released Same Day as He Was Sentenced

 

The Third Department determined the SORA court could make a SORA level assessment without a recommendation from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders.  The facts of the case did not fall into any of the categories listed in the SORA statute which allows an assessment without a Board recommendation when the defendant is not incarcerated and requires a Board assessment before discharge when the defendant is incarcerated.  Here the defendant was released from incarceration on the day he was convicted. In holding the SORA properly made the assessment in the absence of a Board recommendation, the Third Department wrote:

 

Although SORA charges the Board with responsibility for making a risk level recommendation relative to incarcerated offenders, the ultimate responsibility for the risk level determination  is vested  in the  sentencing  court, which  "'in the exercise of its discretion, may depart from [the Board's] recommendation and determine the sex offender's risk level based upon  the facts and circumstances that appear in the record'"…. In our view, this judicial obligation necessarily includes the authority to determine the appropriate procedure for a  risk level determination where,  as  here, the circumstances are not fully addressed by the SORA statutory scheme. This conclusion is supported by the statutory provisions addressing failures by  the  Board  to complete its statutory obligation; where the Board fails to issue a timely recommendation, SORA  provides that the court must nonetheless make  a risk level determination and, if it cannot do  so before the offender is discharged, must "expeditiously complete the hearing  and  issue its determination"  after his or  her  release (Correction Law § 168-l [8]). In effect, that is the procedure that County Court followed here.  People v Grimm, 104233, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

 

Defendant Who Pled to All Charges Without a Plea Bargain Could Not Be Required to Waive Appeal

 

The Third Department noted that the defendant should not have been required to waive his right to appeal where he pled to all the charges and there was no plea bargain:

 

Having exercised his statutory  right to  plead  guilty to  all of  the charges levied against him in the indictment and inasmuch as "no promise, plea agreement, reduced charge, or any other bargain or consideration" was given in exchange for that plea, defendant was improperly required to waive his right to appeal … .  People v Crump, 104433, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

 

Confidential Informant Provided Reasonable Suspicion for a Vehicle Stop/Information Vehicle Occupants Were Armed Justified Stop with Guns Drawn

 

The Third Department determined that information from a confidential informant provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory vehicle stop and noted that a vehicle stop with guns drawn did not ripen into an arrest where the police had reliable information the occupants of the vehicle were armed:

 

We reject defendant's contention that removing him from the vehicle at gunpoint constituted an arrest without probable cause. An investigatory stop will not ripen into an arrest based upon the use of weapons by the police when they have reason to believe that the suspects are armed and dangerous, and here the police had been advised that defendant and the other individual were armed … .  People v Coffey, 104496, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

 

Questioning at Home Did Not Trigger Need for Miranda Warnings

 

The Third Department determined the questioning of defendant by police at defendant’s home did not constitute custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings:

 

At  the  Huntley  hearing, the  two  officers testified that they  informed  defendant  of  the  reason  for  their  visit, were invited into his home, sat around a dining room table and engaged in small talk about  various topics. Defendant was not restrained, he was cooperative and the conversation was cordial, including when discussing the victim's allegations. The questions regarding the victim were investigatory and not accusatory in tone. After about 30 minutes to an hour and defendant's acknowledgment of the veracity of some of the  victim's claims, he  was  asked  to  accompany  the  officers to  the Sheriff's Department,  he  agreed  to  go  in the  officers' unmarked vehicle and he was not at any time placed in handcuffs.  People v Vieou, 104521, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

 

Court’s Failure to Inquire About Potential Conflict of Interest and Failure to Follow Statutory Procedure for Jury Note Did Not Require Reversal

 

The Third Department determined the trial court’s failure to directly inquire into defendant’s awareness of the risks associated with his attorney’s potential conflict of interest and the trial court’s failure to follow the statutory procedure with respect to a note from the jury during deliberations did not require reversal:

 

Early in these proceedings, defendant's trial counsel informed County Court of a potential conflict of interest based upon the prior representation of a prosecution witness by another attorney in counsel's law firm. Although counsel informed the court that defendant had no objection, County Court erred by failing to directly inquire into defendant's awareness of the potential risks and  his willingness to waive any  potential conflict … . * * *

 

While the better practice would  have  been  for County  Court to read the note on the record prior to responding to it and we do not condone the court's curtailment of counsel's argument, the record reflects that counsel was aware  of the specific content of the note and  we  are satisfied that counsel had  a full opportunity to explain his position as to the meaning  of "duly served."  Under  these circumstances, defense counsel can be  said to have meaningfully participated in the response to the note… .  People v Cooper, 104749, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

 

Pat-Down Search After Stop for Traffic Infractions Okay

 

The Third Department determined the police officer [Negron] properly asked defendant to get out of his car, and properly conducted a pat-down search, after a vehicle-stop for traffic infractions:

 

…[O]fficers may exercise their discretion to require occupants to exit a vehicle once a lawful traffic stop has been effected, out of a concern for safety and without particularized suspicion….  Furthermore, a pat-down search of a suspect's outer clothing is reasonable and constitutionally permissible when  an officer observes facts and circumstances that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person is armed or poses a threat to his or her safety… .

 

Here, the entire encounter took place after dark in an area to which Negron had frequently responded to reports of gang activity, drug sales, fights and  shootings. Negron testified that he was familiar with defendant from his prior criminal activity and that defendant had been violent toward police in the past and had twice been charged with resisting arrest. After defendant exited the vehicle, Negron noticed bulges in the pockets in defendant's "grabbable" area, which Negron defined as the hot zone that defendant's hands could access quickly from their normal resting position. Defendant subsequently declined to answer the question as to whether he was in possession of any weapons or drugs, prompting Negron to conduct the pat frisk that ultimately revealed a concealed handgun. Thus, considering the circumstances in their totality, we find that the officer possessed a reasonable basis to perform a pat-down search of defendant for the presence of weapons… .  People v Issac, 104854, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

 

SORA Court’s Failure to Issue Written Findings Required Remittal

 

The Third Department remitted a SORA proceeding because the court did not set forth in its written order its findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to defendant’s application for a downward departure and the oral findings were not sufficiently detailed for adequate review.  People v Filkins, 514025, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

 

Post-Offense “Bad Acts” Erroneously Admitted (Harmless Error)

 

The Second Department determined bad acts committed after the charged crime should not have been admitted, although the error was deemed harmless:

 

The Supreme Court …improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting the admission of evidence relating to two bad acts allegedly committed by the defendant subsequent to the charged crime, since the probative value of such evidence was minimal, and was outweighed by its prejudicial effect… . People v Addison, 2013 NY Slip Op 04015, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

 

 

 

Defendant Handcuffed, Post-Arrest Search of Backpack Unlawful

 

In determining the search of defendant’s backpack was unlawful because there were no exigent circumstances to justify it, the First Department wrote:

 

The search of defendant's backpack following his arrest was unlawful because he was handcuffed at the time of the search and it was no longer in his control…. The contents of the backpack, which included a pair of pliers and unused garbage bags, should have been suppressed because even where a container is not in the exclusive control of the police, exigency justifying its search incident to arrest is not established in the absence of "some reasonable basis for the belief that the contents of those containers might pose a danger to the arresting officers or when there is legitimate concern for the preservation of evidence which might reasonably be thought to reside within the containers"….  People v Diaz, 2013 NY Slip Op 03937, 1st Dept, 6-4-13

 

 

 

Audiotaped Sworn Statement of Witness Admitted Because Defendant Caused Witness to Be Unavailable

 

After a Sirois hearing, the trial court found sufficient circumstantial evidence that the defendant had caused a witness’ unavailability and allowed in evidence (in the People’s case-in-chief) an audio recording of the witness.  In affirming, the Second Department wrote:

 

…[T]he Supreme Court properly admitted a sworn audiotaped statement from Timothy Dixon as evidence during the People's case. A witness's out-of-court statements may be admitted as part of the People's direct case where the People "demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant, by violence, threats or chicanery, caused [the] witness's unavailability"…. "Recognizing the surreptitious nature of witness tampering and that a defendant engaging in such conduct will rarely do so openly, resorting instead to subterfuge, the court can rely on and the prosecution can use circumstantial evidence in making the requisite determination"….  People v Leggett, 2013 NY Slip OP 04028, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

 

 

Absence of Evidence of Physical Injury Precluded 15 Point Assessment for Violence in SORA Proceeding

 

The First Department determined the SORA court improperly assessed 15 points for violence because there was insufficient evidence of physical injury:

 

The court erred in assessing 15 points under the risk factor for use of violence, because the People did not meet their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant caused physical injury (see Penal Law 10.00[9]) to the victim. Although minor injuries may cause substantial pain, a showing of "more than slight or trivial pain" is required …. The People do not dispute defendant's assertion that the photographs of the injuries depicted only "faint marks and superficial scratches." Although evidence of medical treatment is unnecessary to establish physical injury …, here the victim's bare statement that her knee "hurt" was insufficient to support the inference that she suffered substantial pain, given the absence of evidence that she even used ice or an over-the-counter pain reliever. Furthermore, the injury was not sustained as a result of a deliberate assault or other act supporting an inference that it caused substantial pain …. Therefore, the court should have assessed 10 points for forcible compulsion, but not 15 points. People v Quito, 2013 NY Slip Op 03938, 1st Dept, 6-4-13