Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

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