Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and other crimes for the shooting of an individual in 2002. Defendant's principal argument on appeal was that his trial counsel's failure to object to certain remarks made by the prosecutor in summation constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and deprived him of a fair trial. Defendant also challenged the lineup in which he was identified by two witnesses as unduly suggestive. The court held that defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a lack of strategic or other legitimate reasons for his defense lawyer's failure to object in a single instance. The court also held that it was entirely plausible that counsel chose not to object because the prosecutor's remarks impugned the People's witnesses as well as defendant and therefore were consistent with his own theory that the People's witnesses were simply not credible. The court further held that the fact that the witnesses knew that the suspect whom they had tentatively identified from a photographic array would be in a lineup did not, under the circumstances of the case, "present a serious risk of influencing the victim's identification of defendant from the lineup." View "The People v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with multiple counts of first and second degree robbery, as well as various weapon possession offenses where the charges stemmed from a robbery that occurred outside a Manhattan nightclub. At issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a five-minute limitation on counsel for the questioning of jurors during each round of voir dire. The court held that the trial court erred in adhering to the unusually short time restriction after defense counsel objected based on the seriousness and number of charges, the identity of the victim, and certain characteristics of prospective jurors that were revealed during examination by the court. View "The People v. Steward" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree where defendant, an experienced archery hunter, shot an arrow from his compound bow towards his neighbor's yard, fatally striking the victim. On appeal, defendant principally contended that he was entitled to an intoxication charge. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support an inference that defendant was so intoxicated as to be unable to form the requisite intent. The court held, however, that the uncontradicted record evidence, including defendant's own account, supported the conclusion that his overall behavior on the day of the incident was purposeful. Accordingly, defendant was not entitled to an intoxication charge. View "The People v. Sirico" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession and sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and promptly appealed his conviction arguing that the supreme court erred in its suppression ruling. At issue was whether the People must timely object to defendant's failure to prove standing in order to preserve that issue for appellate review. The court held that the People were required to alert the suppression court if they believed that defendant had failed to meet his burden to establish standing where the preservation requirement served the added purpose of alerting the adverse party of the need to develop a record for appeal. Accordingly, because the People failed to preserve the issue, the appellate division erred in entertaining it and the matter was reversed and remanded.

Respondent, a resident of Southold, but not a resident of Fishers Island, filed with the Suffolk County Board of Elections a petition designating himself a candidate in the September 2009 primary election. Petitioners filed objections to the designated petition, alleging that it was invalid because respondent did not meet a residency requirement. At issue was the constitutionality of the residency requirement for the elected position of town justice/town board member, Fishers Island, Town of Southold, Suffolk County. The court held that the residency requirement did not violate the equal protection clause and that the residency requirement passed the rational basis test where the residency requirement imposed only reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions upon the right to vote; where any Southold resident who would otherwise be eligible to run for political office could run for the Fishers Island seat; where the residency requirement affected the right to vote, but only in an incidental way; and where the legislative history of the residency requirement articulated several rational bases for the residency requirement and retaining the dual town justice/town board member seat.

Respondent, a designee of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, petitioned for an order under Mental Health Hygiene Law 9.60 requiring assisted outpatient treatment ("AOT") for Miguel M. At issue was whether the Privacy Rule adopted by the federal government pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2, prohibited respondent from disclosing, at the petition hearing, records from two hospitals related to three occasions on which Miguel was hospitalized. The court held that the Privacy Rule prohibited the disclosure of a patient's medical records to a state agency that requested them for use in a proceeding to compel the patient to accept mental health treatment where the patient had neither authorized the disclosure nor received notice of the agency's request for the records. Accordingly, the medical records at issue were not admissible in a proceeding to compel AOT.

Defendant was convicted for unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and possession of burglar's tools. At issue was whether defendant's conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree was supported by legally sufficient evidence. The court held that the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction where a rational jury could have found that defendant broke into the vehicle at issue by "popping" out the driver's side door lock, entered the car without consent, unscrewed and ripped apart the driver's side dashboard, and stole the vehicle's light control module; and where defendant's unauthorized entry coupled with multiple acts of vandalism and the theft of a part unquestionably interfered with the owner's possession and use of the vehicle.

Defendant was convicted of second degree assault and weapon possession where he was involved in a fight at a movie theater. At issue was whether the failure of the police to interview witnesses after overhearing two potentially exculpatory statements constituted a Brady v. Maryland violation. Also at issue was whether defendant was improperly precluded during cross-examination from challenging the adequacy of the police investigation. The court declined to impose an affirmative obligation upon the police to obtain exculpatory information for criminal defendants and held that the failure to investigate the sources of the two statements was not a Brady violation. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the use of hearsay statements and precluding defendant from challenging the adequacy and thoroughness of the police investigation where the probative force of the proposed evidence was outweighed by the dangers of speculation, confusion, and prejudice.

Defendant was charged with crimes related to the criminal possession of a controlled substance, criminal possession of a weapon, and criminal possession of marijuana. After a Sandoval hearing and just prior to the commencement of voir dire, the court directed defendant's father to leave the court room due to unavailable seating. At issue was whether defendant's right to a public trial was violated when the trial judge sua sponte closed the court room, specifically ejecting defendant's father during voir dire without considering any alternative accommodations. The court held that such an action violated defendant's right to a public trial where the ability of the public to observe questioning of this sort was important and warranted reversal of defendant's conviction.

Defendant applied to the Appellate Division for a writ of coram nobis claiming that appellate counsel's representation was deficient because he did not fault defense counsel for failing to argue at his violation of parole ("VOP") hearing. At issue was whether the Appellate Division properly denied the application. The court held that there was no reason for appellate counsel to make an ineffective-assistance argument when counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise an issue of uncertain efficacy on the appeal where the arguments that defendant asserted trial counsel should have advanced at the VOP hearing were not so strong that "no reasonable defense lawyer could have found [them]...to be not worth raising."