Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The issue in this appeal was whether the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to establish that defendant acted "[w]ith intent to prevent" an emergency medical technician (EMT) "from performing a lawful duty" when he caused an EMT to suffer physical injury. As the uniformed EMT was climbing into the driver's side of an ambulance, defendant blindsided him with a blow to the head, threw him to the ground and pummeled him repeatedly about the face and head. The EMT and his partner on a two-person ambulance crew were about to drive away from the premises where they had just treated an injured woman. The court concluded that the People made out a prima facie case of intent by presenting evidence that defendant attacked someone he had reason to know was an EMT on duty at the time. View "People v Bueno" on Justia Law

Defendants were accused of robbing a store and using a stun gun to incapacitate the store manager temporarily. The court agreed with the Appellate Division that the People failed to prove that the stun gun was a "dangerous instrument" as defined in the Penal Law, and that therefore, defendants' convictions for first degree robbery and fourth degree weapon possession could not stand. However, the court sustained defendants' convictions for second degree robbery. View "People v Hall" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree robbery but acquitted of first degree burglary. On appeal, defendant challenged the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the statutory definitions of the terms "deprive" and "appropriate" as they related to the meaning of larcenous intent. The court held that defendant's challenge to the jury charge was preserved. At trial, defendant's counsel expressed concern that the jury might not understand the meaning of the phrase "[a]ppropriated for himself and requested a particular charge as to intent with regard to that phrase, which the trial court rejected. The court found this to be sufficient to preserve the issue for review because the definition of the term went directly to the question of the permanency of the taking and the requisite intent. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed and a new trial ordered. View "People v Medina" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery, third-degree weapon possession, and second-degree menacing. On appeal, defendant contended that the People's proof was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under People v. Ledwon. The court held that the limited rule of Ledwon did not govern on these facts and the proof at trial was sufficient to support defendant's conviction despite the evidentiary discrepancies. Nevertheless, an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure entitled defendant to a new trial preceded by an independent source hearing. View "People v Delamota" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree rape, first-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. At issue was whether Supreme Court abused its discretion when it dismissed a hearing-impaired prospective juror for cause. The court held that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion by granting the cause challenge to venire member 1405 because the record supported the determination that his hearing impairment would have unduly interfered with his ability to be a trial juror. Defendant's remaining contentions did not require reversal. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "People v Guay" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on one count of first-degree robbery and on one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree. At issue was whether defendant's written statement threatening to shoot a robbery victim with a gun constituted legally sufficient evidence that he was in actual possession of a dangerous instrument at the time of the crime to support the charge of robbery in the first degree. The court held that a defendant's statement that he was in possession of a dangerous instrument, standing alone, did not supply sufficient proof to establish actual possession of a dangerous instrument at the time of the crime to support the charge of first-degree robbery. The court held that this type of statement - whether in the form of a verbal threat or a handwritten note - not only established the threat of physical force necessary to support the charge of third-degree robbery. Accordingly, the People must furnish additional proof, separate and apart from a defendant's statement, that would permit a rational fact finder to infer that a defendant was in actual possession of a dangerous instrument. View "People v Grant" on Justia Law

Defendants, Makeda Davis and Fayola McIntosh, where charged with offenses stemming from an altercation at a nightclub. The primary issue on appeal was whether the People's withdrawal of their cases from the first grand jury presentation due to witness unavailability constituted the functional equivalent of a dismissal pursuant to CPL 190.75 and the court's holding in People v. Wilkins. In Davis, the court held that the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed because the People had instructed the first grand jury that only McIntosh was the target of the proceedings. Since the People never sought an indictment from the first grand jury against Davis, Wilkins was irrelevant since there were no charges against Davis to be withdrawn. With respect to McIntosh, it was undisputed that she was a target of both grand jury presentations. The court held that the People's withdrawal of the charges under the circumstances did not constitute a dismissal under Wilkins and the People were not therefore required to obtain court authorization before re-presenting the case to another grand jury. Accordingly, the orders of the Appellate Division in both Davis and McIntosh were reversed and the cases remitted for reconsideration. View "People v. Davis; People v. McIntosh" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance at or near school grounds. Defendant argued that the withdrawal of the presented counts from the first grand jury constituted a dismissal under People v. Wilkins. The Appellate Division held, instead, that as a matter of statutory interpretation, a failure of a grand jury to agree on either an indictment or a dismissal was not a dismissal and thus did not require leave to re-present. The court held that, although Criminal Procedure Law 190.75(3), read literally, required the People to obtain judicial permission for the resubmission of charges only where the charges have been actually dismissed, it had long been the law that a charge could, under certain circumstances, be deemed "dismissed" within the meaning of CPL 190.75(3) when a prosecutor prematurely took the charge from the grand jury, as is the case here. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed and the indictment dismissed with leave to the People to apply for an order permitting resubmission of the charges to another grand jury. View "People v. Credle" on Justia Law

In these criminal proceedings, the Appellate Division dismissed defendants' direct appeals from their judgments of conviction prior to their hearing and disposition. Both defendants filed timely notices of appeal, but were involuntarily deported by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau while their appeals were pending. The common issue presented was whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion in dismissing these appeals. The court held that the Appellate Division did abuse its discretion where, inter alia, as a matter of fundamental fairness, all criminal defendants should be permitted to avail themselves of intermediate appellate courts as the State had provided an absolute right to seek review in criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the orders should be reversed and the cases remitted for consideration of the merits. View "People v. Ventura" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendants, Corey Becoats and Jason Wright, of second degree (depraved indifference) murder and first degree robbery. The Appellate Division modified by reducing the murder convictions to manslaughter in the second degree, and otherwise confirmed. Defendants subsequently appealed their convictions. The court rejected most of defendants' arguments, but concluded that Wright was entitled to a new trial because of an error in excluding evidence he tried to present in his defense. Accordingly, in Becoats, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed and in Wright, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed and the case remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial. View "People v. Becoats; People v. Wright" on Justia Law