Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals held that, when a defendant asserts an agency defense supported solely by portions of the People’s case-in-chief on the People’s direct case, a trial court may exercise its discretion to entertain the People’s application pursuant to People v. Molineux to allow into evidence a defendant’s prior drug sale conviction on the issue of the intent to sell the drugs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, concluding that the trial court in this case properly allowed the People to introduce evidence of Defendant’s prior drug sale conviction on the issue of intent in their case-in-chief where Defendant essentially adopted the portions of the evidence elicited by the People that supported an agency defense. View "People v. Valentin" on Justia Law

In 2013, Supreme Court issued 381 warrants directed at Facebook upon a warrant application by the New York County District Attorney’s Office that was supported by an investigator’s affidavit. The warrants sought the account information and communications of various Facebook subscribers in connection with a criminal investigation. Facebook moved to quash the warrants, arguing that they were overbroad and lacked particularity. Supreme Court denied the motion. While Facebook’s appeal was pending, Facebook moved for an order compelling disclosure of the investigator’s support affidavit. Supreme Court denied the motion to compel disclosure of the affidavit. Facebook appealed that order as well. The Appellate Division dismissed both of Facebook’s appeals on the ground that they were taken from nonappealable orders. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the orders resolving Facebook’s motions relate to warrants issued in a criminal proceeding, and the Criminal Procedure Law does not authorize an appeal from either order, Supreme Court properly denied the two motions at issue here. View "In re 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that he was deprived of a fair trial by the People’s PowerPoint presentation during summation and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial because the trial court took prompt corrective action to ensure that they jury was not being misled, and the trial court gave strong instructions concerning summation. View "People v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecutor’s use of PowerPoint slides during summation deprived him of a fair trial and that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the use of the slides. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, given the parameters of the permissible use of the PowerPoint slides at issue, counsel was not ineffective for failing to object. View "People v. Anderson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the initial aggressor exception to justification. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was a reasonable view of the evidence that Defendant was the initial aggressor in the use of deadly physical force, and therefore, the trial court did not commit reversible error by including an initial aggressor exception in its justification charge. Remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of the issues raised but not determined on appeal to that court. View "People v. Valentin" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged in both Queens and Richmond Counties with committing numerous sex offenses against four children. Defendant pleaded guilty. When Defendant’s release date was approaching, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders prepared a case summary and risk assessment instrument (RAI) as required by the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Board did not recommend any points under risk factor seven, entitled “relationship with victim.” At the SORA hearing, the court assessed twenty points under risk factor seven and ultimately assessed Defendant a total of 125 points, rendering him a presumptive risk level three. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Supreme Court did not err in assessing points under risk factor seven. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the lower courts erred in assessing twenty points under risk factor seven. View "People v. Cook" on Justia Law

Defendant committed multiple sexual offenses against four children in both Queens and Richmond Counties. Prosecution was coordinated between the two District Attorneys’ offices on both counties, and Defendant pleaded guilty in both counties. Later, in anticipation of Defendant’s scheduled release, the Richmond County sentencing court conducted a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk assessment hearing and adjudicated Defendant a level III, sexually violent offender. Shortly thereafter, the Queens County sentencing court held a SORA hearing and adjudicated Defendant a level III, sexually violent offender. Defendant appealed, arguing that the Queens County adjudication was not authorized by statute and was barred by res judicata. The Appellate Division reversed the Queens County SORA court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the SORA risk assessment hearing, concluding (1) only one SORA “disposition” may be made per “Current Offense” or group of “Current Offenses”; and (2) the doctrine of res judicata barred the Queens County SORA proceedings. View "People v. Cook" on Justia Law

After a nonjury trial, Defendant was found guilty of intentional murder and two counts of burglary in the first degree. The trial court, upon resentencing, sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of fifty-four years to life, with the concurrent sentences on the two burglary convictions imposed consecutively to his sentence on the intentional murder conviction. The Appellate Division affirmed. At issue before the Court of appeals was whether consecutive sentences are authorized under N.Y. Penal Law 70.25(2)** for Defendant’s burglary and intentional murder convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the conduct resulting in Defendant’s conviction of intentional murder and the conduct underlying the elements of the burglary convictions was a single act for consecutive sentencing purposes. View "People v. Brahney" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted robbery in the first degree. At issue on appeal was whether the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that Defendant’s conduct amounted to displaying what appeared to be a firearm. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that, under all the circumstances, Defendant’s conduct could reasonably have led the victim to believe that a gun was being used during the robbery, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. View "People v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of predatory sexual assault and criminal sexual act in the first degree. Before trial, the trial court gave the People permission to question Defendant about the fact that Defendant had been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, pursuant to People v. Sandoval, but not the facts underlying the adjudication. Also prior to trial, Defendant signed a waiver attesting that he gave up his right to be present during sidebar discussions with prospective jurors and/or discussions of law. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the Sandoval ruling on the juvenile delinquency adjudication was harmless error and that Defendant validly waived his right to be present at sidebar conferences. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s challenge to the Sandoval ruling was unpreserved; and (2) Defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to be present at a sidebar conference regarding the potential bias of a prospective juror is not reviewable, as Defendant waived his right. View "People v. Jackson" on Justia Law