Stats & Case Summaries - Fourth Department Decisions Released on October 4, 2013

Criminal Case Summaries:

·        People v Cornell (KA 11-01505) – 4AD reverses D’s conviction because the lower court responded to a jury note off the record, in violation of CPL 310.30. Although the lower court read the note on the record, and sought input from the attorneys on its intended response, it responded to the note off the record, in the jury room, and outside the presence of D. Under these circumstances, the court committed a mode of proceedings error that required reversal and a new trial. 4AD also finds that the lower court erred by admitting into evidence D’s prior bad acts from as far back as 10 years before the arson at issue in this case. Evidence of those bad acts only showed that D was “an erratic and potentially dangerous person” who had the criminal propensity to commit arson.

·        People v Elioff (KA 13-00052) – In this appeal by the People, 4AD reverses the lower court’s order that dismissed the indictment charging D with predatory sexual assault against a child, on the ground that prosecutorial misconduct impaired the integrity of the grand jury. 4AD agrees with the lower court that the prosecutor failed to establish that the 4-year-old victim could provide unsworn testimony, and violated the unsworn witness rule in attempting to persuade the victim to testify about the incident. Nonetheless, 4AD finds the prosecutor’s conduct was not so egregious as to impair the integrity of the grand jury. And, even without the child’s testimony, dismissal of the indictment was not required because there was legally sufficient evidence.

·        People v Lee (KA 10-01048) – 4AD reverses D’s conviction because the lower court erred in denying his suppression motion. Initially, 4AD notes that the record does not support certain factual findings made by the lower court. 4AD finds that for 30 minutes, police observed a man with a satchel walking back and forth from a group of about 10 to 20 people standing outside a bar, to a parked car in which D and another person were seated. The man would reach into the car, and he would return to the area outside the bar and shake hands with certain people in a manner that was consistent with drug transactions. Police eventually went to stop the man with the satchel. When they approached, D, who was then standing outside the car, got into the car and fled. Police pursued, stopped him, and arrested him. They then found a dagger and drugs in plain view. 4AD finds that police lawfully stopped the car, but they did not have probable cause to arrest D. While police observed what might have been hand-to-hand transactions, they did not observe any “telltale signs” that these transactions involved narcotics, such as glassine baggies or the exchange of currency. Because the arrest was illegal, the subsequently discovered tangible evidence and D’s statements had to be suppressed.

·        People v Mhina (KA 09-02274) – 4AD reverses D’s conviction because the lower court erred in admitting evidence of a prior bad act. Specifically, the court erred in admitting evidence that D was investigated for writing checks with knowledge that his bank accounts were either closed or had insufficient funds. That evidence was not “directly relevant” to show that D knew that the checks involved in the crimes at issue in this case were forged or that he had knowingly become involved in a fraudulent check scheme. 4AD explains that this evidence was relevant only to show D’s criminal propensity and was not admissible to establish D’s “familiarity with check frauds and his ability to deceive individuals through banking schemes”. In addition, the probative value of this evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect.

·        People v Rosario-Boria (KA 10-00856) – 4AD reverses D’s conviction because the lower court abused its discretion by refusing to allow him to exercise a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror. D’s attorney mistakenly crossed out the juror at issue, and did not challenge him when asked which jurors he wanted to excuse. The attorney attempted to correct this mistake a few moments later, as the lower court began to indicate how many challenges remained for each side. The lower court refused to permit the challenge. 4AD finds that nothing in the record supported the lower court’s hasty refusal to entertain the challenge.

 

Family Law Case Summaries:

·        Matter of Alesha P. (CAF 12-00761) – In this neglect matter, 4AD finds that the Family Court properly excluded the father from the courtroom during his stepdaughters’ testimony. The court properly balanced the interests of the parties, and reasonably concluded that the stepdaughters would suffer substantial emotional trauma if they were required to testify in open court. The court also properly relied on a social worker’s affidavit, in which the social worker stated that the father’s abuse compromised the stepdaughters’ ability to give clear and accurate testimony in the father’s presence.