New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Wells

  • People v. Wells, 21 N.Y.3d 182 (2013): Use of GPS Tracking Devices and Verdict Sheet Annotations

    People v. Wells, 21 N.Y.3d 182 (2013)

    Warrantless GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment, but the admission of evidence derived from such tracking may be harmless error if the evidence is redundant to legally obtained evidence and there is overwhelming independent evidence of guilt; verdict sheets can contain locations of offenses to distinguish counts for the jury.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of multiple counts related to a forged credit card scheme. The prosecution used evidence obtained from a GPS device placed on the defendant’s car without a warrant, as well as wiretap evidence. The trial court provided the jury with a verdict sheet that included the locations where the offenses occurred. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while the GPS tracking was unlawful, its admission was harmless error because the evidence was redundant. The Court also found the verdict sheet annotations permissible as they aided in distinguishing the numerous counts for the jury.

    Facts

    Defendant and co-defendants engaged in a scheme to steal property using forged credit cards. They acquired credit card numbers from legitimate accounts, placed the stolen information on blank cards using a reader/writer machine, and made purchases at stores in Manhattan. Investigators obtained a warrant to wiretap the defendant’s cell phones, which revealed his activities. Due to difficulties with visual surveillance, investigators placed a GPS device on the defendant’s vehicle without obtaining a warrant.

    Procedural History

    A grand jury indicted the defendant on 61 counts. The case proceeded to trial on 26 of those counts. The defendant was found guilty on 20 counts. The defendant moved for a new trial based on the GPS evidence, which was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the trial court erred by submitting to the jury a verdict sheet that contained the locations of the designated offenses, violating CPL 310.20(2)?

    2. Whether law enforcement’s warrantless installation of a GPS tracking device on the defendant’s vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment?

    Holding

    1. No, because the annotations aided the jury in distinguishing between the multiple counts and fell within the statute’s purpose.

    2. Yes, because under People v. Weaver and United States v. Jones, the use of a GPS device to monitor a vehicle’s movements constitutes a search, requiring a warrant. However, the violation was harmless error.

    Court’s Reasoning

    Regarding the verdict sheet, the Court distinguished People v. Miller, which prohibited verdict sheets from including legal instructions. Here, the annotations merely identified the stores or banks involved in each count, helping the jury differentiate them. This fell within the permissible scope of CPL 310.20(2), which allows for the inclusion of “the dates, names of complainants or specific statutory language” to distinguish between counts. The Court reasoned that the stores’ names were essentially proxies for the “complainants.”

    Regarding the GPS device, the Court acknowledged that under People v. Weaver and United States v. Jones, attaching a GPS device to a vehicle constitutes a search and requires a warrant. The Court stated, “When the police want to place a GPS device on a suspect’s automobile, they must obtain a warrant first.” However, the Court held that the admission of the GPS evidence was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. The GPS information was redundant because the investigators had already learned about the defendant’s destination (a Best Buy store) through legally obtained wiretap evidence. Furthermore, the People presented overwhelming independent evidence of the defendant’s guilt, including surveillance video, sales receipts, and eyewitness testimony. As the court stated, “there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction.”

  • People v. Wells, 7 N.Y.3d 51 (2006): Duplicity in Attempted Murder Charges

    7 N.Y.3d 51 (2006)

    An attempted murder charge is not duplicitous when the evidence shows the defendant fired a gun toward multiple individuals, even if the intended victim is not definitively identified.

    Summary

    Terence Wells was convicted of attempted murder for firing a gun at two detectives. He argued the indictment was duplicitous because the prosecution didn’t prove which detective he intended to kill. The New York Court of Appeals held that the attempted murder charge was not duplicitous. The Court reasoned that the identity of the intended victim is not an element of attempted murder, as the focus is on the intent to kill and the actions taken to effect that intent. The court also addressed a Batson challenge related to jury selection and the denial of a motion to dismiss the jury panel after a potential juror’s comment.

    Facts

    Wells and an accomplice robbed a bakery, killing two people and injuring two others.
    Undercover detectives Weston and Molina, nearby for a narcotics operation, heard the commotion and saw Wells and his accomplice fleeing.
    Detective Weston identified himself and ordered them to stop.
    Wells fired his gun twice in the direction of the detectives as he ran.
    Wells dropped clothing, including a wig containing a handgun, during the police chase before being apprehended.

    Procedural History

    Wells was charged with multiple counts, including first-degree attempted murder of a police officer.
    At trial, Wells moved to dismiss the attempted murder count, arguing it was duplicitous.
    The trial court denied the motion, and the jury convicted Wells of, among other things, second-degree attempted murder as a lesser included offense.
    The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an attempted murder charge is duplicitous when the evidence doesn’t specify which of multiple potential victims the defendant intended to kill.

    Holding

    No, because the identity of the specific intended victim is not an element of attempted murder; the focus is on the intent to kill and actions taken to effectuate that intent.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court relied on People v. Fernandez, stating that because “actual death is not an element” of attempted murder, the “identity of the person whose death” was intended is irrelevant. The court reasoned that the focus is on whether the defendant acted with the intent to kill and took steps toward committing the murder.
    “Under this rationale, the identity of the specific police officer against whom defendant’s murderous intent was directed is not an element of attempted murder in the first or second degree.”
    The court found the jury instructions proper because they allowed conviction if the defendant acted with intent to kill, regardless of which detective was the specific target.
    The court also addressed Wells’ Batson challenge, finding the prosecutor’s reasons for striking a juror (demeanor, fondness for detective stories) were race-neutral. While one comment comparing the juror to a judge was in “poor taste”, it wasn’t facially discriminatory.
    Finally, the court rejected Wells’ argument that the entire jury panel should have been dismissed after a prospective juror’s comment, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice.