New York Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

In People v. Azim Hall [Slip Op. No. 2] the New York Court of Appeals in a split decision ruled that the police may perform a visual inspection of an arrestee’s body cavity based upon reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is hiding evidence inside his or her body cavity but if the police see anything suspicious during the visual inspection of the arrestee’s body cavity they then must get a search warrant before removing the suspicious object from the arrestee’s body cavity unless there are exigent circumstances.

In People v. Gary White [Slip No. 38] the New York Court of Appeals in a split decision held that under the circumstances of this case post-Miranda statements were not required to be suppressed even though the defendant had been subjected to a period of pre-Miranda custodial interrogation without a pronounced break before the commencement of the post-Miranda interrogation. The circumstances included: the pre-Miranda custodial interrogation lasted no more than five minutes, the defendant first gave an exculpatory alibi after being read the Miranda warnings; the defendant made no incriminating statements before the Miranda warnings were read; there was a fifteen to twenty minute period of small talk followed by the defendant being allowed to smoke a cigarette and drink a soda just before the reading of the Miranda warnings, the defendant freely indicated his willingness to speak; the defendant acknowledged he understood his rights ; and the defendant signed a Miranda card before making any substantive statements.

In People v. Marcos Urbaez, [Slip Op. No. 35], the New York Court of Appeals in a unanimous decision held that the defendant – who convicted of attempted aggravated harassment after a non-jury trial- was not wrongfully stripped of his right to a jury trial when the People on the day of trial and over the objection of the defendant reduced the highest charge from aggravated harassment in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor, down to attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree, a class B misdemeanor.

Posted by George P. Conway | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Recent Decisions In New York Criminal Cases

Bookmark:

People v. Lewis [2008 NY Slip Op 100200]

The Appellate Division Third Department announced that it will no longer follow the line of cases holding that a defendant’s challenge to the validity of a waiver of appeal is unpreserved for appellate review if the defense did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction.

People v. Williams [2008 NY Slip Op 100317]

In a unanimous decision the Appellate Division Third Department affirmed an order of the Supreme Court denying a defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005 on the ground that the defendant had been found to have committed numerous serious disciplinary infractions while incarcerated. In so doing, the Court chose to follow the First Department’s holding in People v. Paniagua (45 Ad3d at 107-108) and declined to follow the Second Department’s holding in People v. Sanders (936 AD3d 944 [2007])

People v. Stevens [2008 NY Slip Op 01319]

In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division Second Department affirmed an order of the County Court designating the defendant a level three sex offender having found no merit in the defendant’s argument that the assessment of points against him based upon the victim’s physical helplessness constituted improper “double counting” because he was also assessed points based upon the victim’s age.

.

Continue reading "Recent Criminal Decisions of Interest In New York Criminal Cases- February 2008" »

Posted by George P. Conway | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Recent Decisions In New York Criminal Cases

Bookmark:

People v. Perez , __ AD3d ___, [4th Dept. 0 1/09/08]:
In an unanimous decision, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed a defendant’s conviction of two counts of assault 2nd , one count of resisting arrest and one count of obstructing governmental administration arising out of an altercation with police on the grounds that the initial arrest for criminal impersonation was illegal.

People v. Rosa, ___ AD3d ___, [3rd Dept. 01/10/08]
In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed a Sandoval Ruling allowing a prosecutor in a burglary case to inquire whether the defendant had been convicted of a felony in 1978, had his parole revoked seven times, and was convicted of criminal trespass in 1997 over the defendant’s objections that the convictions were too remote in time on the grounds that incarceration can toll periods of time when assessing remoteness.

People v. Balram, __AD3d __ , [3rd Dept. 01/10/08]
In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress a written statement made by the defendant who was hospitalized at the time the statement was taken for a self inflict facial gunshot wound and who had been given morphine amongst other drugs sometime prior to the police interview on the grounds that neither the defendant’s physical condition nor the circumstances of the interview rendered it involuntary and the People proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.

People v. Shemesh, ___ AD3d__ ,[1st Dept. 01/15/08]
In 3-2 decision, the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, affirmed an order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, with leave to represent, on the grounds that the People failed to offer the defendant a reasonable or meaningful opportunity to testify before the grand jury by insisting the defendant testify on a date that conflicted with his professed religious observance of Passover.

Continue reading "Recent Decisions Of Interest In New York Criminal Cases -January 2008" »

Posted by George P. Conway | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Recent Decisions In New York Criminal Cases

Bookmark: