Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree and unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of uncharged crimes. The Court of Appeals reversed and remitted for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in permitting the People to introduce testimony from the victim about a prior incident in which Defendant allegedly sexually assaulted her in a similar manner because the evidence was not permissible for the People’s proffered Molineux purposes and the prejudicial nature of that evidence far outweighed any probative value. View "People v. Leonard" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and other offenses. The jury convicted Defendant of two counts of DWI. Appellate Term reversed and remitted for a new trial on those counts, concluding that Defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated because the police officer who testified at trial regarding Defendant’s breath test did not personally administer the test, although he did directly observe the test. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that no Confrontation Clause occurred under the facts of this case because the officer testified based on his own observations and inclusions, rather than as a surrogate for his partner, who administered the test, and none of the nontestifying officer’s hearsay statements were admitted against Defendant. View "People v. Lin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of attempted assault in the third degree, assault in the third degree, and other offenses. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting a phone call between Defendant and his ex-girlfriend as an adoptive admission. The Appellate Division concluded that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the call. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because the People satisfied the threshold evidentiary requirements for admissibility, the trial court properly placed the call before the jury; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s request to redact portions of the call; and (3) that the call was recorded while Defendant was incarcerated does not change the analysis. View "People v. Vining" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of hindering prosecution in the second degree. After Defendant’s codefendant was acquitted of the underlying felony, and prior to Defendant’s sentencing, Defendant moved to withdraw his plea. The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court neither abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea nor erred in rejecting Defendant’s attempt to relitigate his guilt, as Defendant’s arguments that his plea was constitutionally infirm and that the codefendant’s acquittal of the underlying felony rendered him innocent were without merit. View "People v. Fisher" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of predatory sexual conduct and three counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment followed by twenty years’ post-release supervision on each of the three counts of criminal sexual act and on each corresponding count of predatory sexual assault. The sentence for the criminal sexual acts was to run concurrently to the sentence for the corresponding predatory sexual assault, with the three pairs of sentences to run consecutively to each other. The Appellate Division affirmed the sentences. Defendant appealed, arguing that his aggregate sentence of seventy-five years violates the Eighth Amendment and N.Y. Const. art. I, 5. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to preserve for review his claim that his sentence was cruel and unusual. View "People v. Pena" on Justia Law