Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree. The Appellate Division affirmed on direct appeal. Approximately a decade later, Defendant moved to vacate his judgment of conviction, asserting that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose to him that a federal civil action had been brought against one of their police witnesses, a homicide detective who interrogated Defendant, based on the detective’s alleged police misconduct in an unrelated case. The Appellate Division remitted the matter for a hearing, determining that the civil allegations against the detective constituted impeachment evidence and that the People’s failure to disclose them may have deprived Defendant of a fair trial. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, although the civil allegations were favorable to Defendant, he failed to prove that the People suppressed the information or that he was prejudiced by the undisclosed information. View "People v. Garrett" on Justia Law

In 1996, Defendant pleaded guilty to third-degree sale of a controlled substance. In 2010, citing Padilla v. Kentucky, Defendant moved to vacate his conviction on the ground that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Supreme Court declined to apply Padilla retroactively to Defendant’s claim. The Appellate Division disagreed with Supreme Court, holding that Padilla was to be retroactively applied to pleas after Congress made significant changes in immigration law in 1996. The United States Supreme Court subsequently decided Chaidez v. United States, holding that Padilla does not apply retroactively in federal collateral review. After Chaidez was decided, the Court of Appeals in the instant case reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that, pursuant to federal or state retroactivity principles, Padilla does not apply retroactively in state court postconviction proceedings. View "People v. Baret" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The jury returned a verdict convicting Defendant of both counts. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it may infer that Defendant possessed the weapon with the intent to use it unlawfully against another. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence that Defendant possessed a loaded firearm, together with the statutory presumption of intent arising from the possession, was legally sufficient to support his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. View "People v. Galindo" on Justia Law

A person commits burglary in the second degree if a person unlawfully enters a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein. In this case, Defendant was convicted of two counts of burglary in the second degree for committing a burglary in the non-residential part of a building used partly for residential purposes. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence supported his burglary convictions but that they were third degree, not second degree. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict of burglary in the second degree. View "People v. McCray" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three robbery counts and one assault count. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain her convictions because, inter alia, the stolen items were not recovered from her possession, and therefore, the jury could not reasonably infer that she threatened or used force to retain possession of the property. The Appellate Division agreed with Defendant reduced her robbery convictions to petit larceny. The Court of Appeals reinstated Defendant’s robbery convictions, holding that there was ample evidence to support a reasonable inference that Defendant stole merchandise and threatened or used force to prevent or overcome resistance to her possession of that property. View "People v. Gordon" on Justia Law

In People v. Syville, the Court of Appeals held that coram nobis may be used to assert a claim that appellate rights were extinguished by ineffective assistance. At issue in these three cases was whether Syville entitled defendants to a writ of error coram nobis in order to pursue untimely appeals. The Court of Appeals held that, under Syville, only defendants who could not have reasonably discovered counsel’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal are entitled to utilize the coram nobis procedure, and the common-law recourse is not available to defendants who are in a position to discover the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. View "People v. Andrews" on Justia Law

Appellant-attorney was criminally prosecuted along with Judge Doe on violations of the campaign finance law. The criminal proceeding was eventually terminated, and the records were sealed. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct subsequently began an investigation into possible judicial misconduct by Judge Doe in the underlying criminal proceeding. Supreme Court granted the Commission’s motion to release the sealed records from the underlying criminal proceeding for use in the investigation. Appellant filed an application to vacate the release order, which Supreme Court denied. Appellant appealed. Meanwhile, the Commission censured Judge Doe for misconduct arising from her judicial election campaign. The Appellate Division dismissed Appellant’s appeal as moot and ordered that the records be resealed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the order dismissing the appeal as moot and upheld the Commission’s authority to request and receive Appellant’s sealed records, holding that the Commission is authorized to request and receive records sealed under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 160.50 for its use in investigations. View "State Comm'n on Judicial Conduct v. Rubenstein" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division reversed and granted Defendant a new trial, holding that the court’s colloquy with a single juror in the presence of the attorneys but not in the presence of Defendant, during which the court repeated to the juror a substantive instruction previously given to the entire jury, constituted a mode of proceedings error. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a mode of proceedings error occurred in this case, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to a new trial. View "People v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Both Defendants in this case were required to register as a sex offenders pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). At issue in these cases was the SORA risk assessment guidelines promulgated by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. The Court of Appeals held (1) guidelines factor 3, which is based on the number of victims involved in an offender’s crime, permits the scoring of points based on the number of different children depicted in the child pornography files possessed by a child pornography offender; (2) a position statement issued by the Board on the evaluation of child pornography cases under SORA does not prohibit a SORA court from assigning points to an offender under factor 3 and factor 7 (which accounts for the increased risk of sexual recidivism posed by an offender whose crime is directed at a stranger); and (3) where an offender requests a downward departure in a SORA case the offender must prove the facts supporting a downward departure by a preponderance of the evidence. View "People v. Gillotti" on Justia Law

The Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the New York City Courts entered an order relieving a district attorney from an investigation and appointing a special district attorney to conduct the investigation in Donovan’s place. After the special prosecutor issued a grand jury subpoena to Petitioner, Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to vacate the special prosecutor's appointment. The Appellate Division denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, concluding that relief by prohibition was not the appropriate remedy. The Court of Appeals affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) relief by prohibition was a appropriate in this case; but (2) the special prosecutor was validly appointed. View "Matter of Working Families Party v. Fisher" on Justia Law