It is not often that a pro se supplemental brief --- a brief filed by the defendant himself, raising claims not asserted in his appointed attorney's brief --- persuades a court. After all, if the arguments were winners, appointed counsel probably would have made them, right? In People v. Layou (4th Dept. 3/19/2010), the Fourth Department unanimously reversed a defendant's conviction based, in part, on arguments the defendant made in his pro se supplemental brief.
At the time the defendant was approached by police, he was sitting "in a vehicle at 3:40 a.m. in a parking lot located in the general vicinity of burglary that the police were investigating[.]" Subsequently, an officer pulled into the lot behind the defendant's vehicle. The police vehicle prevented the defendant from driving away. Defendant later made certain statements to police, who searched the defendant and found cocaine. At trial, the defendant was convicted of CPCS 7º, Obstructing Governmental Administration 2º, and Resisting Arrest.
The defendant argued that police "seized" his vehicle by pulling behind him in the parking lot; the defendant further argued that the police lacked reasonable suspicion for this seizure. Therefore, the defendant concluded, the trial court erred by refusing to suppress the fruits of the seizure, including the cocaine and the defendant's statements to police. Considering that (1) the police did not observe the defendant engage in "any conduct indicative of criminal activity" at the time of seizure; (2) the complainant reporting the burglary "did not mention that the burglars fled in a vehicle;" and (3) the police "had no other information ... connect[ing] the defendant ... with the reported burglary[,]" the court agreed with the defendant.
Additionally, the defendant's appointed attorney argued in his primary brief that the cocaine should have been suppressed because of "deficiencies in the chain of custody." Here again, the court agreed, noting a month-long gap in the chain of custody for which the People had failed to provide an explanation. While noting that "reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence" may revive the admissibility of evidence with gaps in the chain of custody, the court also noted that the People provided no such assurances here. Accordingly, the Fourth Department unanimously reversed the defendant's convictions, dismissed the indictment, and remanded the matter to the Oswego County Court. (JTR/LC)
Comments