New York Criminal Decisions of Interest -April 2008
In People v. Robert, [ slip Op 100350] the Appellate Division – 3rd Department stated that: “it is well settled that where a defendant’s plea is withdrawn, it is out of the case for all purposes and the People may not use the plea or the contents of the plea allocution on their direct case or for purposes of impeachment”.
In People v. Carthew [Slip Op 50879], the Appellate Division- 2nd Department affirmed the dismissal of an information charging the defendant with criminal contempt in the second degree because the factual portion of the information failed to allege that the defendant was served with a copy of the order of protection, that he was present in court when it was issued or that he signed the order of protection. The Court also noted that a certified copy of the order of protection was not attached to the information.
In People v. Christiansen [ Slip Op 50693], the Appellate Division-2nd Department, affirmed the dismissal an information charging the defendant with resisting arrest because the factual part of the information only named the offense for which the defendant was arrested instead of setting forth allegations sufficient to establish- if true - that the defendant’s arrest was lawful.
In People v. Stoneham [Slip Op 03860], the Appellate Divison-4th Department, held that a show up identification held in geographical and temporal proximity to a crime is not unduly suggestive even when the defendant is identified while sitting in the back of a police car in handcuffs.
In People v. Gause, [ Slip Op 100785] , the Appellate Division-3rd Department, held that an inmate was under sufficient added constraint of the type that required him to be given Miranda warnings prior to any custodial interrogation. The inmate had been removed from his cell, handcuffed, detained, directed to sit on a Boss chair and then escorted to a special housing unit under close guard to be striped frisked.
In People v. Judson [Slip Op 96902B], the Appellate Division-3rd Department, held that a lower court must hold a hearing when determining a defendant’s sex offender risk level classification if the defendant contests a factual assertion in the case summary.
