Stats & Case Summaries - Fourth Department Decisions Released on July 3, 2014

Criminal Case Summaries:

·       People v Guariglia (KA 13-02182) – 4AD rejects D’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to the prosecutor’s failure to fully disclose the benefits a prosecution witness received for her testimony. The prosecutor disclosed that the People agreed that the witness, D’s former girlfriend, would not be taken into custody on outstanding warrants when she testified, but instead would be permitted to turn herself in. After she testified, she turned herself in, but was released on her own recognizance. D’s counsel later learned that the prosecutor had called the City Court Judge and asked that the witness be released. 4AD finds that even if the prosecutor failed to disclose promises made to the witness (i.e., that the prosecutor would call the judge), the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 4AD notes that the witness’s trial testimony was consistent with prior testimony she had given, and that it is doubtful that the jury’s credibility determinations would have differed had the jury known of the undisclosed promise.

·       People v Kolata (KA 13-01147) – 4AD finds that the lower court improperly imposed a sentence based on D’s post-plea arrest without determining that the information upon which it was basing the sentence was accurate and reliable. The lower court sentenced D solely based on information in the pre-sentence report, which indicated that D was arrested for a misdemeanor and a violation. 4AD rules that the court erred in relying on the “mere fact” that D was arrested, and by failing to “carry out an inquiry of sufficient depth to satisfy itself that there was a legitimate basis” for D’s arrest.

·       People v Malone (KA 10-01760) – 4AD rejects D’s claim that the trial court erred in permitting him to proceed pro se. D argued that his request was equivocal and should not have been granted. D had been assigned three different attorneys, and when he asked for another new attorney or to represent himself, the lower court denied the request and instead ordered a competency examination under CPL 730. The examination determined that D was not an incapacitated person. Days before trial, D again asked for a new attorney or to represent himself. The court then conducted a searching inquiry, and confirmed twice whether D wanted to represent himself. Although D equivocated at first, he then confirmed he wanted to proceed pro se. 4AD finds that D’s requests for new counsel did not render equivocal his request to represent himself. D “was not hesitant to represent himself”, nor were his requests “overshadowed” by several requests for a new attorney.