ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Articles Posted in THEFT CRIMES

Published on:

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York robbery case involving the defendant’s motion to suppress an identification made by the complaining witness, as well as statements made by the defendant after his arrest. Ultimately, the court held that because the prosecution failed to establish that the defendant’s arrest on an unrelated matter was supported by probable cause, the subsequent identification and statements were “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and must be suppressed.

According to the court’s opinion, a man was robbed in Queens. A day or two after the robbery, the assigned police officer provided the complaining witness with a photo lineup, where he identified the defendant. The officer filled out an identification card, which essentially put other police officers on notice that the defendant should be arrested. Several days later, the assigned officer was informed that the defendant was in custody based on an unrelated matter. The officer brought the complaining witness to the station, where he identified the defendant. The defendant then gave a statement to the police.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the witness’s identification, as well as the statement he made following his arrest. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the “fellow officer rule” justified that defendant’s arrest. Under the fellow officer rule, if an arresting officer lacks probable cause to arrest, the arrest may still be valid if the arresting officer makes the arrest based on communication with a fellow officer who had information justifying the arrest. The defendant was convicted of robbery and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.

Published on:

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York theft case, affirming a defendant’s conviction for grand larceny in the third degree which is a class “D” felony under New York law and is punishable by up to 7 years in prison. The case presents a good illustration of the type of evidence necessary to sustain a New York larceny conviction.

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant opened a bank account in his name. To do so, he provided two forms of identification, as well as all his personal information.  The next day a person known to the defendant then deposited in the defendant’s account the amount of $11,340. To facilitate the deposit, the defendant provided the other person with his debit card and its PIN. The subsequent day, the defendant made a series of withdrawals through several branches and locations, totaling $11,000. Each of these withdrawals was below the monetary limit that would require further investigation by the bank. The defendant could be seen on video making two of the withdrawals. The $11,340 check ultimately turned out to be fraudulent.

The defendant was charged with grand larceny in the third degree, based on the “three-day scheme by which he arranged the deposit of a forged check—into an account apparently created for the sole purpose of housing the stolen funds—and then immediately withdrew the proceeds.”

Published on:

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York robbery case requiring the court to determine if the defendant’s motion to suppress the eyewitness’s identification should be suppressed. Ultimately, the court concluded that the witness’s identification was not suppressible, and affirmed the defendant’s conviction for robbery.

Identifications, like other forms of evidence, must be suppressed if they are unduly suggestive. When making this determination, New York courts employ a burden-shifting analysis. First, the prosecution has the burden to show that the police officers’ identification procedure was reasonable and was not unduly suggestive. If the prosecution meets that burden, then it is up to the defense to show that the identification procedure was improper.

According to the court’s opinion, a pizza delivery person was robbed in September, 2011. The following day, the delivery person identified the defendant as the person who robbed him. Police officers did not preserve the photo array. Thirteen months later, the defendant was arrested and identified by the delivery person in an in-person lineup. The defendant was charged with robbery.

Published on:

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York robbery case, reversing the defendant’s conviction based on the lower court’s improper denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress his statement. Specifically, the statement included his answers to a few questions asked by a detective before the detective read the defendant his Miranda warnings.

According to the court’s opinion, a woman was robbed by an unknown man while walking with a friend. Later, the friend admitted that she had planned the robbery with the unnamed man, the defendant in this case. The friend gave a statement to police implicating the defendant, who was arrested. In her statement, the friend claimed she knew the defendant because they both worked at the same bar.

After he was arrested, a detective sat down with the defendant. Before reading the defendant his Miranda rights, the detective asked the defendant a few preliminary questions about his employment and work history. The defendant answered the questions, and then the detective read the defendant his Miranda rights and continued to ask questions about the robbery. The defendant was ultimately arrested and convicted of robbery and related charges.

Published on:

The concept of jury nullification is an important concept for experienced criminal defense lawyers to understand.  As a by product of our system of justice, a jury has the power to acquit even those who have had the charges poven against them.  This is a fact, largely kept secret from the public and not sanctioned by the Courts. In People v. Goetz, the Court of Appeals stated:  “While there is nothing to prevent a petit jury from acquitting although finding that the prosecution has proven its case, this so-called mercy-dispensing power,’ . . . is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury and should not be encouraged by the court.”

Jury nullification is when the jury ignores the law because it believes that its application in a specific case is unjust. Essentially, a jury who nullifies believes that the defendant was guilty of the crimes he was charged with, but that convicting him under the specific circumstances would not be in the interest of justice. Jury nullification is not an official part of the criminal law, and in some jurisdictions attorneys who advance a nullification theory to the jury can be sanctioned by the court for violating the profession’s ethical code. Indeed, a defense attorney cannot explicitly request the jury nullify, and if she chooses a nullification strategy, she must go about it subtly.

In June, a state appellate court issued an interesting opinion in a New York burglary case discussing whether an attorney’s strategy to argue for jury nullification constituted effective representation. The court concluded that, given the facts of the case, the chosen jury-nullification strategy was appropriate and a potentially effective defense to the crimes charged. Thus, the court upheld the defendant’s conviction.

Published on:

In New York, Burglary is a serious felony.  The facts of the Burglary will determine whether there is a mandatory minimum state prison sentence associated with a conviction and how long that state prison sentence will be. In April of 2019, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on an important case discussing the “intent” element of the crime of burglary. While the case arose in Michigan, the case raises an important issue that could come up in a New York burglary case.

Historically, burglary has been defined as an unlawful entry at night into a building owned by another, with the intent to commit a crime therein. Over the years, lawmakers have refined the definition of burglary. For example, nearly all states have eliminated the requirement that the alleged acts occur in the evening hours. Additionally, many states have added language into the burglary statute allowing the crime to be proven by showing that the defendant “unlawfully remained” on the property with the intent to commit a crime.

The exact nature in which the case arose is complex; however, the Court was asked to determine whether Michigan’s “home invasion” statute satisfied the elements of a “burglary” for the purposes of the Armed Career Criminals Act. Michigan defined a home invasion as “breaking and entering a dwelling and while entering or present in the dwelling, committing a misdemeanor.”

Published on:

In May 2019, in a New York robbery case, a state appellate court issued a written opinion discussing an important issue that may arise in any case in which there is more than one person named as a defendant. Specifically, the case required the court to determine if the defendant was deprived of a fair trial when the court allowed a codefendant to testify against the defendant after the codefendant negotiated a deal directly with the trial judge. Ultimately, the court found in favor of the defendant, ordering a new trial.

According to the court’s opinion, both the defendant and codefendant were arrested and charged with first-degree robbery. While some of the crime was captured on video, the faces of the robbers were not visible. Before trial, the codefendant entered an open guilty plea to each charge. The court informed the codefendant that the range of his sentence would be between nine and 15 years, and that the codefendant’s specific sentence would depend on the “level of cooperation in the prosecution” against the defendant. The court explained that “one of the primary touchstones” of its determination would be whether the codefendant’s testimony at trial was consistent with his statements to police in which he identified the defendant.

At trial, the codefendant testified that he was one of the people who committed the robbery and the defendant was also involved. The codefendant identified the defendant as the other person who committed the robbery on the surveillance footage. The prosecution questioned the codefendant, eliciting testimony that there was no deal between the prosecution and the codefendant. The court later informed the jury that the court had entered into an agreement with the codefendant. The jury convicted the defendant, and the defendant appealed.

Published on:

In order to convict someone of a crime in New York, the prosecution must establish each element of the offense. Under New York law, a burglary occurs when a person “knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein. Thus, in the case of a New York burglary charge, the prosecution must establish that the defendant 1.) knowingly entered or unlawfully remained 2.) in a building 3.) with the intent to commit a crime therein.

If the prosecution is unable to establish each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then a defendant cannot be convicted of that offense. However, prosecutors typically charge multiple similar crimes, so if they are cannot convict a defendant of the lead charge they will still attempt to convict on a lesser charge. A recent state appellate decision illustrates this concept in the context of a burglary charge.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant allegedly assaulted a 14-year old girl and, as he was fleeing from the police, entered a person’s home without permission. While he was inside the house, the defendant allegedly stole several articles of clothing.

Continue reading

Published on:

When courts determine a defendant’s sentence, one of the factors they consider is the defendant’s prior record. Typically, the more convictions a defendant has on their record, the harsher the penalty they can expect to receive.

New York lawmakers have prescribed an escalating punishment scheme for “second felony offenders.” Under New York Consolidated Laws § 70.06, a second felony offender is someone who has recently been convicted of a qualifying offense and has a qualifying predicate offense. The punishments for second felony offenders are mandatory, meaning a judge cannot exercise her discretion to impose a more lenient sentence, and are significantly increased over those for first-time felony offenders. A proficient New York criminal appeals attorney can break everything down further regarding the details of your specific case once you reach out to them.

When it comes to determining whether a previous conviction is a qualifying predicate offense, courts look both to the date of the sentence as well as the type of crime. In a recent case, a New York appellate court clarified that it the original date of sentencing that courts should look to when determining if someone qualifies as a second felony offender.

Continue reading