Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

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