Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals reversed the conclusion of the appellate division that the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) court acted within its discretion by upwardly departing to level three in determining Defendant's risk level classification, holding that the SORA court deprived Defendant of basic due process protections of notice and an opportunity to be heard.Defendant's convictions required him to register under SORA. At the SORA hearing, the court noted that Defendant would normally be required to register as a level two sex offender but upwardly departed to level three due to Defendant's "extensive prior disciplinary history." The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the proceeding failed to comport with due process because Defendant was provided no notice or meaningful opportunity to be heard in response to the District Attorney's request for an upward departure. View "People v. Worley" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the appellate division reversing the judgment of Supreme Court denying Petitioner's N.Y. C.P.L.R. 70 habeas corpus petition and dismissing the proceeding, holding that the Sexual Assault Reform Act's (SARA) mandatory restriction prohibiting a person who is serving a sentence for an enumerated offense against a minor victim and is released on parole from coming within 1,000 feet of school grounds applies to youthful offenders.Petitioner was eighteen years old at the time he pleaded guilty to the attempted second-degree rape of a thirteen-year-old victim and was adjudicated a youthful offender. The Board of Parole granted Petitioner an open date for release subject to numerous conditions, including SARA's school grounds condition. Unable to obtain suitable housing and still imprisoned, Petitioner brought this proceeding alleging that, as a youthful offender, he was not subject to the school grounds condition. Supreme Court denied the petition, but the appellate division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the legislature did not mean to exclude youthful offenders from SARA's school grounds condition. View "People ex rel. E.S. v. Superintendent, Livingston Correctional Facility" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the appellate division affirming Defendant's conviction, following a jury trial, of second-degree murder and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, holding that members of the public were excluded from the courtroom at a time when they should have had access, and that error violated Defendant's right to a public trial.The judge overseeing Defendant's criminal trial delegated to court officers the implementation of the judge's general policy of prohibiting the public from entering or exiting the courtroom while a witness testified. The appellate division affirmed, concluding that Defendant's right to a public trial was not violated because the exclusion was caused by factors outside of the court's knowledge and control. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the judge bore responsibility for the proper implementation of his policy, and the misapplication of the judge's policy violated Defendant's right to a public trial because it led to an unjustified exclusion of the public. View "People v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the appellate division affirming Defendant's conviction, following a jury trial, of second-degree murder and second-degree weapon possession, holding that Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated in this case and that Defendant was entitled to a new trial.For the last four days of Defendant's eight-day jury trial, which included the testimony of several witnesses, summations, and the jury's verdict, the trial court ordered the courtroom closed to the public and all interested spectators. At the conclusion of trial the jury found Defendant guilty. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the record did not demonstrate that "unusual circumstances" necessitated closure of the courtroom, and therefore, the trial court improperly abridged Defendant's constitutional right to a public trial. View "People v. Reid" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a stop and frisk, holding that the circumstances of this case did not warrant a level three stop and frisk under People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 (1976).Defendant, who was stopped and frisked after he existed a parked car and walked down the street, filed a motion to suppress drugs found on his person as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and Defendant was subsequently convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The appellate division affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and directed that the indictment be dismissed, holding that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and frisk of Defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the minimum standard required to justify a stop and frisk under People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 (1976), was not met in this case. View "People v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's criminal convictions, holding that the count of the indictment charging Defendant with aggravated family offense was jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed but that there was no error as to Defendant's conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt in the first degree, criminal contempt in the second degree, and aggravated family offense. The appellate division modified the judgment by vacating Defendant's conviction of criminal contempt in the second degree and otherwise affirmed. The Supreme Court modified the appellate division order, holding (1) a jurisdictional defect in the aggravated family offense count required that the aggravated family offense count be dismissed; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his argument that his criminal contempt in the first degree conviction must be vacated on the ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting that conviction. View "People v. Saenger" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the appellate division affirming the summary denial of Defendant's N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) 440 motion, holding that the district court's summary denial of Defendant's motion to vacate his conviction was not an abuse of discretion.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of rape and sexual abuse and sentenced to fifty-four years in prison. Several years later, Defendant moved to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and the discovery of new evidence. County Court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, and the appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion without a hearing. View "People v. Hartle" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the appellate division affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of rape in the first degree, holding that Defendant's constitutional right to prompt prosecution under the due process clause of the New York Constitution was violated in this case.The complainant reported to the police that she had been raped a few hours earlier by Defendant, whom she identified. The complainant submitted to a sexual assault examination, but Defendant, who was questioned by the police the same day, but refused to provide a DNA sample. Years later, a sample of Defendant's DNA sample was obtained via a buccal swab, which disproved Defendant's claim that he and the complainant had not had sex. More than four years after the complainant reported the assault, the People filed an indictment against Defendant. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the excessive preindictment delay violated his due process right to prompt prosecution. County Court denied the motion, and Defendant was convicted. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the indictment, holding that the delay of the police and prosecutors violated Defendant's constitutional right to a prompt prosecution. View "People v. Regan" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the appellate division affirming as modified the judgment of supreme court in favor of Plaintiff on her claim that Defendants had violated her due process rights during foreclosure proceedings, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on appeal.Defendants commenced an in rem tax foreclosure proceeding and mailed notice to the publicly-listed owners of the property and publicized the notice in the press. Further, defendant County Treasurer personally contacted the only business located on the property to try to identify any person to inform of the pending foreclosure proceeding. Plaintiff brought this action alleging that the in rem proceeding was a nullity and that Defendants had violated her due process rights. Supreme Court granted judgment for Plaintiff. The appellate division modified the judgment by vacating the portion declaring the foreclosure proceeding a nullity and granted Plaintiff relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendants' efforts to identify and inform those persons with interests in the property were sufficient. View "Hetelekides v. County of Ontario" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction of one count each of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree and two counts of criminal contempt, holding that the trial judge committed constitutional error by ordering Defendant handcuffed without placing the special need for such restraints on the record and that the error was not harmless.The trial judge ordered Defendant to be handcuffed when the jury returned to announce its verdict. The judge, however, did not provide an on-the-record, individualized explanation for the restraints. The appellate division affirmed, concluding that any error in Defendant's being handcuffed without any explanation on the record was harmless. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) until the jury returns to the courtroom, publicly announces the verdict and confirms the verdict, the defendant is still presumed innocent and the constitutional prohibition on restraining a defendant without explanation remains in force; and (2) the constitutional error in this case was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring a new trial. View "People v. Sanders" on Justia Law