Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a verdict sheet listing stores and issuing banks as identifying annotations did not violate CPL 310.20 (2). The court also held that warrantless installation of a GPS tracking device on the defendant’s vehicle constituted a search requiring a warrant under the New York and Federal Constitutions. It nevertheless affirmed the conviction because the constitutional violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether CPL 310.20 (2) permitted the trial court to include store locations and issuing-bank information on the jury's verdict sheet to distinguish multiple counts.
- Whether law enforcement's warrantless installation and use of a GPS tracking device on defendant's vehicle constituted an unlawful search under the New York and United States Constitutions.
- If the GPS search was unconstitutional, whether the constitutional violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel by counsel's failure to challenge admission of the GPS-derived evidence.
Holdings
- CPL 310.20 (2) permitted the trial court to identify the stores and banks associated with the counts because the annotations served only to distinguish among multiple counts and did not provide legal instructions or include information of substance.
- Law enforcement's warrantless attachment and use of a GPS device to monitor defendant's vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and the New York Constitution; police must obtain a warrant before placing a GPS device on a suspect's automobile.
- The constitutional violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not require reversal.
Key quotations
“When the police want to place a GPS device on a suspect’s automobile, they must obtain a warrant first.” (23 N.Y.3d at 189)
“We conclude, however, that this violation of defendant’s constitutional right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because “there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction”” (23 N.Y.3d at 189)
“Verdict sheets may not be utilized to provide legal instruction to a deliberating jury; such instruction is to be provided by the trial court in its jury charge” (23 N.Y.3d at 187)
Factual background
Defendant and codefendants used stolen credit-card numbers and forged cards to make or attempt purchases at numerous Manhattan stores. Investigators wiretapped defendant's phones pursuant to an eavesdropping warrant and, without first obtaining a warrant, attached a battery-operated GPS device to his vehicle for approximately three weeks. The GPS-related surveillance information was disclosed shortly before trial, and the prosecution presented wiretap evidence, surveillance video, receipts, employee interviews, and visual observations linking defendant and his codefendants to the charged transactions.
Procedural history
A grand jury indicted defendant and codefendants on 61 counts arising from a forged-credit-card scheme. The case proceeded to trial on 26 counts, and defendant was convicted on 20 counts. The trial court denied defendant's posttrial CPL 330.30 motion and sentenced him to 9 to 28 years' imprisonment. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division.