Source: https://nycriminallaw.wordpress.com/category/app-term-1st-dept/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:28:11+00:00

Document:
Category Archives: App. Term 1st Dept.
The defendant in People v. Smith (App. Term 1st Dept. 12/7/2018), the was convicted after a bench trial of Reckless Driving, Failure to Exercise Due Care to Avoid Collision with a Pedestrian, and Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian. The Appellate Term, First Department, reversed the defendant’s convictions holding that the defendant’s actions did not rise to the level of criminal negligence and the convictions were against the weight of the evidence.
The defendant’s convictions stemmed from a motor vehicle accident where she was the driver. The defendant was driving and as she began to make a left turn, her vehicle was hit by a FedEx truck. The impact of the collision caused her to lose control of her vehicle and, in an attempt to avoid hitting a pedestrian, defendant drove the vehicle onto a sidewalk, where it scraped a building before striking and killing a pedestrian. Testimony at trial showed that prior to striking the pedestrian, when the defendant tried to step on the brakes, her vehicle would not stop. At the conclusion of trial, and at the defendant’s request, the Criminal Court utilized the criminal negligence mens rea with respect to the charged offenses Failure to Exercise Due Care and Failure to Yield. The defendant was convicted of all charges.
A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he or she fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. Penal Law § 15.05(4). The criminal negligence standard is more serious than that required in a civil suit. The criminal standard requires a defendant to have engaged in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of a proscribed result; nonperception of a risk, even if the proscribed result occurs, is not enough.
In People v. Simon (App. Term 1st Dept. Aug. 31, 2011), the trial court granted (without a hearing) the Defendant's 440 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Term found this was error.
while the suppression court found that the officer's testimony was "at times" not credible, the court made no specific finding that the officer's testimony regarding his observations of defendant (or defendant's pre-arrest admission) was not credible.
The trial judge assessed the credibility of Officer Ulich firsthand. The court found that the myriad inconsistencies in his testimony undermined his credibility with respect to his description of defendant's condition that morning and that there were therefore no facts upon which to base a finding of probable cause. Although the trial court also found it important that the Officer did not use roadside coordination tests or a portable breathalyzer or that the Officer was not trained to identify intoxicated individuals, this Court does not find those issues compelling. Nonetheless, based on the Officer's testimony, it appears that the findings of the lower court were not clearly erroneous and the decision should therefore be affirmed.
People v. King (Ct. App. 6/29/2010) (4-3) – In a brief memorandum, the majority reversed County Court, concluding that the defendant's motion to suppress should have been granted.
People v. Perkins (Ct. App. 6/29/2010) (7-0) – photo array lawfully admitted into evidence. More on Perkins later.
People v. Williams (Ct. App. 6/29/2010) (7-0) – defendant waived Antommarchi rights.
Today's batch of decisions from the Second Appellate Term include two reversals for prosecutorial misconduct.
In the first, People v. Gutierrez (2d App. Term 6/21/2010), the defendant was on trial for Sexual Abuse 2º and Endangering the Welfare of a Child. The prosecutor referred to the defendant taking "trophies" for his "collection," which implied that he had abused other children. The majority found that this was reversible error. In dissent, Justice Golia wrote that the curative instructions given by the court were sufficient to ameliorate any prejudice.

References: v. 
 § 15
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.