The Court of Appeals announced new decisions today:
- People v. Buchanan (Ct. App. 6/30/2009) (per curiam; Read, J., dissenting) - the state constitution prohibits a court from ordering a defendant to wear a stun belt during his trial, even if he is charged with murder and the belt is not visible to the jury, "without a finding of specific facts justifying the use of such a restraint." What is interesting about this case is that the court ducked the question of prejudice (which was the subject of Judge Read's dissent) and never articulated why state law should go above and beyond the federal constitution. The court did not employ the analysis required by People v. P.J. Video, 68 N.Y.2d 296 (1986). On the merits, I agree that some particularized showing of need is required by due process. There must be intangible prejudices that are inherent with the wearing of a stun belt. Even an innocent person would worry and preoccupy about it going off accidentally, even though I am not aware of a single instance of this happening. This worry and preoccupation must be visible to the jury or impede the attorney-client relationship. I am also surprised that the court's opinion was so short and bereft of analysis, given the magnitude of the issue and the fact that the holding drew a dissent.
- People v. Gomez (Ct. App. 6/30/2009) (Jones, J.) - evidence not admissible under the inventory search exception. Although the officer prepared a "voucher" of the evidence seized, he did not prepare an inventory form or explain what other items were in the vehicle. Moreover, there was no evidence that the officer acted in accordance with the protocol, particularly when it came to the opening of the car's trunk. The court emphasized that the People need not introduce the Patrol Guide in every case; however, I have repeatedly emphasized---and continue to emphasize---that doing so is good practice. Moreover, an inventory form---labelled as such---is not always required. "[T]he failure to use an inventory search form, while a technical defect, is not fatal to the establishment of a valid inventory search as long as (1) the search, in accordance with the "standardized procedure," is designed to produce an inventory and (2) the search results are fully recorded in a usable format."
(LC)
Comments