Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant and his codefendants were charged via a sixty-one count indictment with several crimes arising from a sophisticated scheme to steal property through the use of forged credit cards. The case proceeded to trial on twenty-six of the counts. The jury found Defendant guilty on twenty of the twenty-six counts. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the trial court ran afoul of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 310.20(2) when it submitted to the jury a verdict sheet containing the locations of the designated offenses; and (2) law enforcement’s warrantless installation of a GPS tracking device on Defendant’s vehicle violated this Court’s holding in People v. Weaver and the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Jones. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court appropriately included the annotations on the verdict sheet so that the jury could distinguish the submitted counts; and (2) Defendant’s constitutional rights were violated by the warrantless installation of the GPS tracking device on his vehicle, but the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "People v. Lewis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of first-degree robbery. Defendants appealed, arguing, among other things, that their counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to assert as an affirmative defense that one of two weapons displayed during the gunpoint robbery was not "a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or serious physical injury, could be discharged" pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law 160.15. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) defense counsel were not ineffective for neglecting to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence or for failing to put the affirmative defense before the jury; and (2) the record supported the lower courts' determination that the robbery victim's showup identification of Defendants was proper. View "People v. Howard" on Justia Law

Defendants in these three consolidated appeals were convicted of depraved indifference murder for driving in an outrageously reckless manner while intoxicated by alcohol or drugs and causing the death of at least one other person. Defendants challenged their convictions, contending that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support their convictions. Specifically, Defendants asserted that there was insufficient proof they had the requisite mental state of depraved indifference. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that there was sufficient evidence in each case that Defendants were aware of and appreciated the risks caused by their behavior. View "People v. Heidgen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child. Prior to Appellant's release from prison, the Department of Correctional Services transferred Appellant to Kirby Psychiatric Center. During his confinement at Kirby, the State filed a N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law 10 civil management petition against Appellant. A jury found that Appellant suffered from a mental abnormality, and the court assigned him to the Office of Mental Health for confinement in a secure facility. Appellant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that Supreme Court erred when it allowed experts to testify to unreliable hearsay when the hearsay served as the underlying basis for the experts' opinion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, holding (1) the trial court improperly permitted the State's experts to introduce certain unreliable hearsay as well as some hearsay with a patina of reliability that nevertheless was more prejudicial than probative as a matter of law; and (2) these errors denied Appellant due process. View "State v. Floyd Y." on Justia Law

At issue in these consolidated criminal appeals was whether, prior to permitting a defendant to plead guilty to a felony, a trial court must inform the defendant, if the defendant is not U.S. citizen, that he or she may be deported as a result of the plea. The Court of Appeals held that due process compels a trial court to apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not a U.S. citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony. In so holding, the Court (1) overruled the portion of its decision in People v. Ford which held that a court's failure to advise a defendant of potential deportation does not affect the validity of the defendant's plea; and (2) held that the trial court's failure to notify a pleading non-citizen defendant of the possibility of deportation does not entitle the defendant to automatic withdrawal or vacatur of the plea, but rather, in order to overturn his or her conviction, the defendant must establish the existence of a reasonable probability that, had the court warned the defendant of potential deportation, the defendant would have rejected the plea and opted to go to trial. View "People v. Peque" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree for possessing a loaded firearm. The count was based on evidence that a loaded gun was found in Defendant's home. With the indictment, the People filed a special information alleging that Defendant had previously been convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. Supreme Court reduced the charge to third degree possession. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the second degree charge. At issue on appeal was whether Defendant was entitled to rely on the so-called "home or business" exception in the definition of second degree weapon possession despite his prior conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because Defendant had a previous conviction, the exception did not apply. View "People v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant, a convicted criminal, was convicted of the class C felony of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced to three and one-half years in prison for possessing a loaded weapon in his home. Defendant appealed, arguing that, while the State did have power to punish him for having an unlicensed handgun in his home, his conviction infringed on his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms where his punishment was unusually severe. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant's sentence did not raise constitutional problems in this case. View "People v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Petitioners were current and former elected officials and appointed officers of the Village of Freeport. In 2008, Water Works Realty Corp. commenced lawsuits against the Village and Petitioners alleging, inter alia, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. The Freeport Board of Trustees authorized the Village to defend and indemnify Petitioners, but after Petitioners refused to settle with Water Works due to Water Works' requirement that Petitioners sign a stipulation of discontinuance containing a nondisparagement clause, the Village withdrew Petitioners' defense and indemnification. Petitioners subsequently filed an action seeking a judgment directing the Village to provide a defense. Supreme Court denied the request. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the municipality could withdraw its defense and indemnification of Petitioners for their failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer, and Petitioners' First Amendment concerns with respect to the settlement's nondisclosure clause did not warrant a different conclusion. View "Lancaster v. Inc. Vill. of Freeport" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence found inside his car, arguing that it was obtained by police during an invalid inventory search. Supreme Court denied the suppression motion, and Defendant pled guilty. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the inventory search was improper but that Defendant's guilty plea nonetheless was valid under People v. Lloyd, which recognized exceptions to the principle established in People v. Grant that the harmless error doctrine generally cannot be used to uphold a guilty plea that is entered after the improper denial of a suppression motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the erroneous denial of Defendant's motion to suppress was not harmless because there was not sufficient independent proof of Defendant's guilt. View "People v. Wells" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree manslaughter, second-degree assault, third-degree assault, reckless endangerment, and reckless driving. The Appellate Division affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the second-degree manslaughter and second-degree assault convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the proof was legally sufficient to prove Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt where the evidence demonstrated that Defendant (1) engaged in conduct exhibiting "the kind of seriously blameworthy carelessness whose seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community's general sense of right and wrong," and (2) acted with the requisite mens rea of recklessness by consciously disregarding the risk he created. View "People v. Asaro" on Justia Law