Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction of four counts of assault in the first degree for his participation in an attack involving two victims, holding that Defendant's allegations of error were unavailing.On appeal, the appellate division considered together Defendant's direct appeal from the judgment and his appeal by permission from Supreme Court's order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. The appellate division denied all relief, concluding that Defendant failed to show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Defendant argued that his retained attorney's suspension from practice by the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit rendered the attorney "constructively suspended" from the practice of law in New York and that, alternatively, his attorney's failure to inform him of of the suspension and pending reciprocal disciplinary proceedings in New York deprived him of his constitutionally-protected right to choice of counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant was not deprived of the attorney of his choice solely due to the imposition of foreign discipline. View "People v. Burgos" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the second degree, three counts of robbery in the first degree, and two counts of attempted robbery in the first degree, holding that Defendant was not entitled to a new trial based on his absence from a sidebar conference with a prospective juror.In the middle of the voir dire proceeding involving a prospective juror who was ultimately struck when Defendant's codefendant exercised a peremptory strike, Defendant explicitly waived his right under People v. Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247 (1992), to be present at sidebars. At issue was whether Defendant was entitled to a new trial based on his absence from a pre-waiver sidebar conference with that same prospective juror. The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the claimed error required Defendant's protest in the trial court. View "People v. Wilkins" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction on several counts related to the possession of firearms and controlled substances, holding that reversal was required because no Frye hearing was held on the admissibility of statistical evidence generated by the forensic statistical tool (FST) developed by the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner, where it was alleged that Defendant was a contributor to a multiple-source DNA profile.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that his motion to suppress should have been granted because the "pedigree exception" to the Miranda requirement did not apply under the facts of his case. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) a police officer's question to Defendant regarding where he lived fell within the pedigree exception to Miranda, and therefore, Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a Frye hearing with respect to the admissibility of the evidence derived from the FST on the multiple-source DNA sample. View "People v. Wortham" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Appellate Division modifying the judgment of Supreme Court certifying Defendant, who was convicted of burglary in the first degree as a sexually motivated felony, as a sex offender as that term is used in N.Y. Corr. Law 168-a, holding that the statutory question reached by the Appellate Division was not properly preserved.On appeal, Defendant argued for the first time that his certification as a sex offender was unlawful because his crime of conviction was not an enumerated registrable sex offense under section 168-a(2)(a). The Appellate Division agreed and modified the judgment by vacating the requirements that Defendant register as a sex offender. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Defendant failed to preserve his claim that he was not subject to certification as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act, N.Y. Corp. Law art. 6-C, and that the illegal sentence exception did not apply. View "People v. Buyund" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that, when a deliberating jury requests supplemental instruction concerning a relevant criminal statute, consent of the parties is not required before the trial court, during a readback of the requested law and relevant definitions, may simultaneously display the corresponding text using a visualizer.After a jury trial, Defendant ws convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. During jury deliberations, the jury sent a notice requesting the elements and relevant definitions of the charged crimes and asked that this information be displayed on the visualizer. The judge projected a portion of the court's final instructions as requested by the jury. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that there was no error. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the judge did not "give" the jurors copies of the relevant text but merely displayed the statutes on the visualizer, there was no abuse of discretion. View "People v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction of robbery in the first degree, holding that the trial court, in denying Defendant's application under People v. Bedessie, 19 NY3d 147 (2012), did not err in precluding the testimony of Defendant's proffered expert witness on false confessions after holding Frye and Huntley hearings.Defendant was charged with having committed two elevator robberies. Prior to trial, Defendant served a notice of intent to introduce psychiatric evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that he was suffering from psychiatric conditions that adversely affected the reliability and voluntariness of the interrogations conducted. Supreme Court denied Defendant's motion to present expert witness testimony on the phenomenon of false confessions because Defendant failed to demonstrate that the proposed testimony was relevant to his case. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the expert psychological testimony as to false confessions because it was not relevant to the circumstances of the custodial interrogation at issue. View "People v. Powell" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the appellate division affirming Defendant's conviction of grand larceny in the third degree, holding that Defendant neither forfeited his right to counsel nor validly waived his right to appeal.After several of Defendant's attorneys withdrew from representing Defendant, Defendant was forced to represent himself. The jury found Defendant guilty as charged. At sentencing, pursuant to an agreement, Defendant signed a written waiver of his right to appeal in exchange for a recommendation of time served. County Court sentenced Defendant to time served. On appeal, Defendant argued that the appeal waiver was invalid and that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, holding (1) the lower courts erred in determining that Defendant's conduct with assigned counsel was so egregious as to constitute forfeiture of the right to counsel; and (2) Defendant's appeal waiver was invalid. View "People v. Shanks" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments of the trial courts in these two cases convicting Defendants of violating Administrative Code of the City of New York 19-190, known as the "Right of Way Law," holding that the statute is not unconstitutional.The Right of Way Law makes it a misdemeanor for a driver, while failing to exercise due care, to make contact with a pedestrian or bicyclist who has the right of way and thereby cause physical injury. Both defendants in these cases were charged with violating the Right of Way Law, a misdemeanor. Defendants argued that the law's ordinary negligence mens rea violated due process because the standard was impermissibly vague and legally insufficient. Defendants also made two preemption arguments. Both defendants were convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Right of Way Law does not violate due process and is not preempted by state law. View "People v. Torres" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and remanded with directions to grant Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment against him insofar as it sought to dismiss the count in the indictment charging manslaughter in the second degree, holding that this count required dismissal.Defendant was indicted on charges of manslaughter in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds that the evidence presented to the jury was legally insufficient. County Court granted the motion in part and dismissed the charge of manslaughter in the second degree. The Appellate Division reversed and denied Defendant's motion in its entirety. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient to establish the requisite mens rea for second-degree manslaughter or the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide. View "People v. Gaworecki" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division affirming the judgment of the suppression court denying Defendant's motion to suppress certain eavesdropping evidence, holding that eavesdropping warrants are executed in the geographical jurisdiction where the communications are intentionally intercepted by authorized law enforcement officers within the meaning of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 700.At issue was whether a Kings County Supreme Court justice had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants for Defendant's cell phones for the purpose of gathering evidence in an investigation of enterprise corruption and gambling offenses in Kings County. The cell phones were not physically present in New York. The suppression court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that since the crimes were allegedly committed in Kings County, the county had jurisdiction to prosecute the crimes and there was a sufficient nexus of the issuance of the eavesdropping warrants in that county. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Kings County Supreme Court Justice presiding in the jurisdiction where Defendant's communications were overheard and accessed and therefore intercepted by authorized law enforcement agents had the authority to issue the warrants. View "People v. Schneider" on Justia Law