Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with several crimes for committing acts against a six-year-old girl. Before trial, the People made a plea offer of ten years’ probation for a single crime. After hearing the trial court’s warning that he would not receive leniency should he be found guilty the charges, Defendant rejected the State’s plea offer and proceeded to trial. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual misconduct, and endangering the welfare of a child. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of ten to twenty years. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a presumption of vindictive sentencing did not apply to the circumstances presented in this case. View "People v. Martinez" on Justia Law

In exchange for a fee, Defendant used a stolen New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) key to allow two undercover police officers to enter the subway system through an emergency exist gate. Defendant was subsequently charged, by misdemeanor information, with petit larceny. Defendant pleaded guilty to petit larceny under the information and also pleaded guilty to theft of services under a second information. Defendant appealed, arguing that the information charging him with petit larceny was jurisdictionally defective because the NYCTA was not the “owner” of any property taken within the meaning of the larceny statutes. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the information adequately alleged all the elements of a larceny in setting forth Defendant’s unauthorized use of the illegally-obtained key to allow individuals to enter through the exit gate in exchange for money, thereby depriving the NYCTA, as the owner, of its property. View "People v. Matthew P." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a second child sexual assault felony offender to a determinate term of fifteen years with five years of post-release supervision. The Appellate Division affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that his right to a fair trial was violated because of alleged critical mistakes by his trial counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to establish that defense counsel made the type of missteps that establish a performance so lacking in competence and strategic purpose that it failed to meet the constitutional minimum standard of professionalism recognized by the Court. View "People v. Wragg" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional murder in the second degree and attempted intentional murder in the first degree. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of testimony concerning Defendant’s 2005 assault of a restaurant worker was unpreserved or waived at trial; (2) the trial court properly allowed the prosecutor to inquire about a 2002 incident in which Defendant reacted with violence to a verbal insult to his mother; and (3) reference to a 2010 incident in which Defendant broke an inmate telephone and threatened a corrections officer should have been excluded, but the error was harmless. View "People v. Israel" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four counts of grand larceny in the first degree and one count of petit larceny. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) properly declined to give a circumstantial evidence charge, and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s requests for a mistrial after the jurors indicated during deliberations that they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in refusing to grant Defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Defendant’s requests for a mistrial, and the court’s procedure did not coerce the jury into delivering a verdict. View "People v. Hardy" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged in an indictment with murder in the second degree. After a jury trial, Defendant was acquitted of second degree murder but found guilty of manslaughter in the first degree. During trial, Defendant claimed that he intervened in an ongoing fight that began in his absence in order to shield a third party from an unlawful attack. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and dismissed the indictment, holding (1) the standard criminal jury instruction on the “initial aggressor exception” to the justification defense is misleading unless a supplemental charge is given on the meaning of “initial aggressor” in the defense-of-another scenario; and (2) in the context of this case, the trial court’s failure to give such a supplemental instruction was not harmless. View "People v. Walker" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report for violating prison disciplinary rules. At the disciplinary hearing, Petitioner pleaded not guilty and requested another inmate be called as a witness. When the inmate reversed to testify, Petitioner asked the hearing officer to re-contact the witness. When the hearing reconvened, the hearing officer did not state whether the inmate had been re-contacted. The hearing officer subsequently found Petitioner guilty of all charges. Thereafter, Petitioner commenced this N.Y. C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding asserting that the hearing officer violated his constitutional right to call witnesses for failing to make reasonable efforts to contact the witness. Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter for a new hearing. Petitioner appealed, arguing that expungement was the proper remedy for violation of an inmate’s right to call a witness at a prison disciplinary hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, a rehearing was properly ordered. View "Texeira v. Fischer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, second-degree assault, two counts of second-degree weapons possession, and first-degree reckless endangerment. The Appellate Division affirmed Defendant’s convictions, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when, in response to a request from the deliberating jury, it did not provide the jury with a substantial portion of requested evidence regarding the potential bias of two key prosecution witnesses and then suggested to the jury that there was no other evidence relevant to its inquiry. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances in this case, the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law by failing adequately to answer the jurors’ note and creating a false impression of the nature of the evidence. View "People v. Taylor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the trial court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to discuss a substantive jury note with counsel outside the presence of the jury. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the trial court’s departure from the O’Rama procedure in this case was error, but it was not a mode of proceedings error where the court read the note into the record in the presence of the parties, counsel, and the jury before providing a response; and (2) therefore, the preservation rule applied. View "People v. Nealon" on Justia Law

After a nonjury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in allowing the People to introduce evidence of Defendant’s prior conviction of a sex crime committed against a child as evidence of his intent in the present offense; (2) Defendant’s conviction of attempted kidnapping in the second degree was supported by legally sufficient evidence; and (3) Defendant’s remaining contentions did not warrant reversal. View "People v. Denson" on Justia Law