New York Criminal Decisions of Interest -June 2008
In People v. Hoffler, [2008 Slip Op. 16241] the Appellate Division Third Department found merit in the defendant’s contention that the complete failure to swear any of the prospective jurors in before they were questioned about their qualifications to serve as jurors required reversal of his murder conviction as a matter of law.
In People v. Weaver, [2008 Slip Op. 101104] the Appellate Division Third Department ruled that the NY Constitution does not preclude the warrantless placement of a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of a motor vehicle or retrieval of its data in connection with an ongoing police investigation.
In People v. Robinson [2008 Slip Op 05533] the Appellate Division Second Department held that the lower court correctly denied the defendant’s motion for discovery of the computer source code of the Intoxilyzer in a driving while intoxicated case.
In People v. David [2008 Slip Op. KA 03-01477] the fourth Department reversed a murder conviction based upon the People’s failure to comply with discovery demands in a timely manner and upon the lower court’s failure to grant the defendant’s requests for brief adjournments to review the material eventually disclosed by the People. The People had failed to disclose-amongst other things- a 12 page firearm analysis with photographs until the day of jury selection.
In People v. Turnbull [2008 Slip Op. 05737] the Appellate Division Second Department in the interest of justice reduced the defendant’s sentence for rape in the first degree from 24 years to 20 years.
In People v. Adams [2008 Slip Op. 05522] the Appellate Division Second Department dismissed an indictment charging the defendant with assault in the first degree on ground that the People failed to prove the victim -who was stabbed in the chest and back- suffered “serious physical injury”.
In People v. Smith [2008 Slip Op. 05949] the Appellate Division Second Department reversed a defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial based upon the lower court’s refusal to grant defense counsel’s challenge for cause of a juror who during voir dire indicated: that he believed he was present at the press conference announcing the defendant’s arrest; he knew the district attorney socially; he was personal friends with the assistant district attorney assigned to the case before trial; and he might know some of the police officer’s expected to testify at trial.
