Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was thirty-four weeks pregnant when she struck the vehicle of Robert and Mary Kelly, killing them both. Defendant’s baby was born after an emergency cesarean section but died six days later from injuries sustained in the accident. Defendant was indicted on three counts of manslaughter in the second degree, one count of aggravated vehicular homicide, and one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the combined influence of alcohol or drugs. After a second trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Defendant not guilty on all counts except manslaughter in the second degree for the death of her child. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a woman cannot be convicted of manslaughter for conduct with respect to themselves and their unborn fetuses unless such conduct is done intentionally. View "People v. Jorgensen" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested in the lobby of an apartment building that was enrolled in the trespass affidavit program. Upon his arrest, officers frisked Defendant and found a razor blade in one of his pants pockets. Defendant pleaded guilty to, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the razor blade. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the combination of Defendant’s presence in the building with the private and protected nature of that location supported the lower courts’ determination that the police officers had an objective credible reason to approach and request information from Defendant and thus to begin the encounter that culminated in Defendant’s arrest and the seizure of the razor blade. View "People v. Barksdale" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of sodomy. In contemplation of Defendant’s release from incarceration, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders prepared a case summary and a risk assessment instrument. At the ensuing court appearance, Supreme Court assessed Defendant eighty-five points and adjudicated him a level two sexually violent offender, finding sufficient evidence, consisting in part of the grand jury minutes, to support the imposition of points for course of sexual misconduct. The grand jury minutes were not disclosed to the defense in reaching Defendant’s Sex Offender Registration Act risk level determination. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that there was no due process violation in Supreme Court’s reliance on the grand jury minutes. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant’s due process rights were violated when the hearing court relied on the grand jury minutes, but given the overwhelming evidence that was disclosed to Defendant in support of the same risk factor, the error was harmless. View "People v. Baxin" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. Defendant waived prosecution by information. Defendant appealed, arguing that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally defective. The Appellate Term affirmed, concluding that the accusatory instrument was facially sufficient. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the language used in the accusatory instrument gave Defendant sufficient notice of the crime charged to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy. View "People v. Sans" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with three counts of witness tampering and bribery for cultivating a relationship with and giving money to three girls, witnesses to the murder of Dennis Brown. Defendant’s half-brother, Wesley Sykes, was charged with the murder. As the trial of Sykes was about to begin, Bobby Gibson, an eyewitness to the shooting, was shot and killed outside the apartment of one of the three girls. An unrelated individual later confessed to the murder of Gibson. During Defendant’s trial, the trial court ruled that evidence of Gibson’s murder was necessary for the jury to consider the reliability and truthfulness of the three girls. The jury acquitted Defendant of all three tampering counts but convicted him of the bribery counts. On appeal, Defendant argued that he was deprived of a fair trial because the trial court allowed evidence of the Gibson murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the court’s decision to admit the evidence of Gibson’s murder was not an abuse of discretion. View "People v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant, a high school student, anonymously posted sexual information and photographs of fellow classmates and other adolescents on Facebook, a social networking website. Defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to cyberbullying under a local law enacted by the Albany County Legislature. Defendant appealed, arguing that the cyberbullying law violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Albany County’s cyberbullying law was overbroad and facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause because the text of the law criminalized a variety of constitutionally-protected modes of expression - a great deal more than acts of cyberbullying. View "People v. Marquan M." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with numerous crimes arising from his theft of a minivan and the death of a pedestrian that the minivan struck during a high-speed police chase. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of depraved indifference murder, unlawful fleeing of a police officer in a motor vehicle in the first degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree. On appeal, Defendant asserted that there was insufficient evidence to support his depraved indifference murder conviction. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order by reducing Defendant’s depraved indifference murder conviction to manslaughter in the second degree, holding that the evidence in this case was legally insufficient to support the conviction because the circumstances did not fit within the narrow category of cases wherein the facts evince a defendant’s utter disregard for human life. View "People v. Maldonado" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of grand larceny and money laundering, both in the second degree, for defrauding the former New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, of $750,000. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions. On appeal, Defendant argued that the testimony regarding the source of the stolen funds violated the best evidence rule and that, without the testimony, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) by the time Defendant raised his objection, other testimony was given that tended to prove ownership, and therefore, the best evidence rule challenge was of no consequence; and (2) nevertheless, the testimony was not so prejudicial as to deny Defendant a fair trial. View "People v. Haggerty" on Justia Law