Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was arraigned on three accusatory instruments, each charging him with two counts of forcible touching, sexual abuse in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree. Upon motion, Criminal Court consolidated the three accusatory instruments. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to one count of forcible touching. The Appellate Term reversed the conviction and dismissed the accusatory instrument based on factual insufficiency grounds. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Appellate Term and reinstated Defendant’s conviction, holding that the accusatory instrument set forth sufficient factual allegations to establish the elements of the offense. View "People v. Hatton" on Justia Law

On March 30, 2006, Defendant was indicted for various charges arising from a burglary that occurred in January 2005. Defendant was arrested on April 4, 2006 for a different burglary that occurred that day. On April 7, 2006, the People filed a felony complaint against Defendant for a burglary that occurred on February 23, 2006. Defendant was charged with two counts of burglary in the second degree for both the April 4 and February 23 incidents. After a trial on the consolidated indictments, Defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree relative to both the 2005 and February 23, 2006 burglaries. The sentencing court adjudicated Defendant a second violent felony offender based on a 1985 conviction for robbery in the second degree and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals modified the order of the Appellate Division by remitting the case for resentencing, holding (1) the courts below properly denied Defendant’s motions to dismiss the grand jury indictment for the February 23 burglary; but (2) Defendant should not have been sentenced as a second violent felony offender for the 2005 burglary because his 1985 conviction occurred more than ten years earlier, and the intervening periods of incarceration did not close the gap. View "People v. Small" on Justia Law

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