A few days ago, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Term’s decision dismissing an accusatory instrument as jurisdictionally defective. At issue was whether the term “manual stimulation” in the context of Patronizing a Prostitute 3º was sufficient.
At the Appellate Term, the defendant argued, “the [term] ‘manual stimulation’ he sought could refer to a ‘foot rub, therapeutic massage, chiropractic adjustment, personal training – even an energetic match of thumb wrestling’.”
I think I’ll let the Court of Appeals’ opinion on this issue speak for itself:
The factual allegations that defendant requested “manual stimulation” from a woman on a street corner, for a specific sum of money, at 2:25 a.m., supplied “defendant with sufficient notice of the charged crime to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy” (People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 ). Defendant’s argument that “manual stimulation” could be indicative of nonsexual conduct ignores the inferences of sexual activity to be drawn from the factual context in which the statement was alleged to have been made—a late night solicitation of a physical personal service from an individual on a public street, in exchange for a sum of money. Any assertion that defendant was referring to a nonsexual activity “was a matter to be raised as an evidentiary defense not by insistence that this information was jurisdictionally defective” (see Casey, 95 NY2d at 360). The fact that the instrument used a clinical phrase for the sexual activity alleged does not render the instrument jurisdictionally defective.
Barry Kamins has the first of two Law Journal articles about new legislation affecting New York’s criminal justice system. In the first (subscription required), he provides a thorough overview of the new Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct, including some of the constitutional controversies over the new commission. For those unfamiliar with the commission, the article is worth a read.
Courts are back from their summer recesses, and so are we! Look for case summaries in several, new Appellate Division cases in the next few days.
When jurors communicate with third parties about the case in which they are hearing, it can adversely impact the trial by prejudicing the defendant. In People v. Neulander (4th Dept. 6/29/2018), one juror’s misconduct impacted the defendant’s rights and resulted in a new trial.
The defendant in this case was convicted by a jury of Murder 2º of his wife and Tampering with Physical Evidence.
The defendant contended that his conviction should be set aside on grounds of juror misconduct. Under CPL 330.30(2), the verdict may be set aside for juror misconduct if the misconduct may have affected a substantial right of the defendant, and it was not known to the defendant prior to the verdict. The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence every fact essential to support the motion.
The defendant established during his CPL 330.30(2) hearing that a juror engaged in text messaging with third parties about the trial, including receiving a text from her father saying: Continue reading
One other point worth mentioning about Robles is footnote 5, where the majority states, “We do not address whether Robles could have pursued relief by commencing a CPLR article 78 proceeding, ‘from which an appeal to this Court might ultimately have been taken’ (Newsday, 3 NY3d at 652).” That’s a very interesting issue. Would Article 78 be available to pursue relief? I suppose the respondent would be the JSC who denied the motion to quash, and the basis would be CPLR 7803(3) or (4).
But there’s a problem with that approach. CPLR 7801(2) states: “Except where otherwise provided by law, a proceeding under this article shall not be used to challenge a determination: … which was made in a civil action or criminal matter.” So that there is not an otherwise appeal process (CPLR 7801(1)) if of no moment if the decision is part of a civil or criminal action, which the Court in Robles says that it is. The key language, though, is the last clause of CPLR 7801(2): “unless it is an order summarily punishing a contempt committed in the presence of the court.” If the reporter is held in summary contempt for refusing to testify, then an Article 78 proceeding can be commenced.
The question then is the nature of such contempt proceedings. At least one authority takes the position that “[a]n order of contempt is not summarily granted and is not subject to review under Article 78 where it is made after due warning upon a record adequate for judicial review and with an opportunity for the contemnor to purge him- or herself of the contempt.” 6 N.Y. Jur. 2d Article 78 § 47 (citing Hunter v. Murray, 130 A.D.2d 836 [3d Dept. 1987] [“Accordingly, the court possessed the jurisdiction, power and discretion to hold petitioner in criminal contempt (Judiciary Law § 751), and since petitioner had available to him full judicial review of the record of proceedings finding him in contempt through normal avenues of appellate review, relief under CPLR article 78 is not available (see, Matter of Morgenthau v. Roberts, 65 N.Y.2d 749, 492 N.Y.S.2d 21, 481 N.E.2d 561; Matter of Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County v. Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 439 N.Y.S.2d 882, 422 N.E.2d 542). Petitioner’s argument of the applicability of the provisions of CPLR 7801(2) is without merit, since the order of contempt herein was not “summarily” granted, but made after due warning upon a record adequate for appellate review and with an opportunity to purge himself of the contempt.”]).
I haven’t dug too deeply into this aspect of Article 78, but I suspect we will see this issue further developed the next time a report unsuccessfully moves to quash a subpoena. (LC)