Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was indicted for various drug offenses. At a Huntley hearing, the county court judge informed the parties that he may have either represented or prosecuted Defendant on unrelated criminal matters in the past, but neither party object to the judge's continuing to preside over the matter. Later, however, Defendant requested that the judge recuse himself based on the judge's prior representation of him. The judge denied the motion, ultimately finding no reason to disqualify himself. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several counts of criminal possession of marijuana. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, holding that the judge's recusal was not warranted and that Defendant received meaningful representation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to recuse himself; and (2) Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. View "People v. Glynn" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested after law enforcement officers noticed him walking on a roadway with wet blood stains on his clothes, hands, and shoes. Because the officers believed a person may have been injured, they continued to question Defendant despite his request for legal assistance. Eventually, officers discovered Defendant's business partner lying dead in his driveway. Defendant was indicted for second-degree murder and moved to suppress statements he made to the police and an acquaintance, as well as the physical evidence, claiming he had been arrested without probable cause and interrogated in violation of his right to counsel and without having received Miranda warnings. The county court ruled that the detention and questioning of Defendant were justified under the emergency doctrine. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the record supported the determination that the emergency doctrine justified the police questioning; and (2) the courts below did not err in finding that Defendant's assertions were voluntary and admissible at trial. View "People v. Doll" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a weapon not in his home or place of business and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The Appellate Division affirmed. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial court's admission of a 911 telephone call reporting that a person matching Defendant's description committed an uncharged gunpoint robbery and police testimony describing the radio run they received about the call deprived him of a fair trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the 911 evidence to be admitted, along with several limiting instructions, as background information to explain the aggressive police action toward Defendant. View "People v. Morris" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the offense of manslaughter. The Appellate Division affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether Defendant's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who was a long-time friend of the prosecuting attorney. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that counsel's decision not to use a peremptory challenge on the juror was questionable, but the mistake, if it was one, was not the sort of egregious and prejudicial error that rendered counsel's representation of Defendant as a whole ineffective, and thus, Defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to counsel. View "People v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant, a patient in the psychiatric ward of a medical center, was convicted of assault in the first and second degree based on an incident in which he assaulted and severely injured another psychiatric patient. The Appellate Division modified by vacating the second degree assault conviction and, as modified, affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Supreme Court did not deny Defendant his constitutional right to present a defense, to confront witnesses, and to a fair trial by limiting Defendant's examination of two witnesses - a doctor who evaluated Defendant after the assault and the assault victim's father. View "People v. Daryl H." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional murder and second-degree weapon possession. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge committed mode of proceedings errors by departing from the protocol for handling jury notes set forth in People v. O'Rama. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence, determining that Defendant's unpreserved claims did not implicate O'Rama or constitute mode of proceedings errors and declining to reach them in the interest of justice. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant's claims were unpreserved and unreviewable and did not constitute mode of proceedings errors. View "People v. Alcide" on Justia Law

Respondent was convicted of second degree forgery and sentenced to a term of probation. One of the conditions of Respondent's probation was a requirement that he submit to random drug testing. Appellant, a drug testing laboratory, was engaged by the County to conduct the testing. After Appellant detected the presence of THC in Respondent's fluid sample, Respondent's probation was revoked. Respondent subsequently commenced this action alleging that Appellant had issued the report reflecting the positive test result both negligently and as part of a policy of deliberate indifference to his rights. Supreme Court granted Appellant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the complaint stated a cause of action against Appellant for the negligent testing of Respondent's biological specimen notwithstanding the absence of a contractual relationship between the parties. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Appellant owed a duty to Respondent under these circumstances. View "Landon v. Kroll Lab. Specialists, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, who was seventeen years old at the time, was charged with several counts of felony drug possession. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced to five years in prison plus two years of post-release supervision. Defendant appealed, arguing that the sentencing court erred in failing to address the question of youthful offender treatment at sentencing. The appellate division affirmed, concluding that Defendant waived his right to be considered for youthful offender treatment by failing to request he be treated as a youthful offender. At issue on appeal was N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 720.20(1), which provides that, where a defendant is eligible to be treated as a youthful offender, the sentencing court must determine whether he is to be so treated. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute requires that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible even if the defendant fails to request the determination or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain. Remitted for a determination of whether Defendant was a youthful offender. View "People v. Rudolph" on Justia Law

In these two unrelated cases, Defendants were resentenced because the sentencing court failed to impose mandatory postrelease supervision (PRS) as part of the original sentence. Defendants appealed, concluding that the imposition of PRS to their determinate sentences at resentencing violated Double Jeopardy Clause. The Appellate Division affirmed the resentences, concluding that Defendants did not have a legitimate expectation of finality in their respective determinate sentences because they had not completed their aggregated sentences prior to resentencing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendants' respective resentences did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because Defendants did not have a legitimate expectation of finality until they had completed their aggregated sentences under N.Y. Penal Law 70.30. View "People v. Brinson" on Justia Law