People v. Cisse
149 A.D.3d 435
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ali Cisse was convicted after a jury trial of multiple counts including first- and second-degree robbery, attempted robbery, weapons offenses, and first-degree reckless endangerment; aggregate sentence 12 years.
- Police approached Cisse after he appeared to notice a marked police car and displayed suspicious behavior; an officer told him to "hold up/hold on for a second" and to "turn around," standing about 10–15 feet away.
- Defendant moved to suppress physical evidence, arguing the initial encounter was an investigatory stop (level two/three) without proper predicate; suppression denied at hearing and on appeal.
- During trial the court queried the jury about a possible partial verdict after jury notes; the jury soon returned a full verdict.
- Incarcerated defendant made monitored phone calls after being given notice they could be recorded; recordings containing incriminating statements were admitted at trial. Defendant challenged sufficiency/weight on reckless endangerment, voice ID procedure, and sought youthful offender treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper level of police encounter (suppression) | People: encounter was a level one request for information supported by a credible, noncriminal reason | Cisse: initial encounter was an investigatory stop (level two/three) lacking reasonable suspicion | Court: encounter was level one; suppression properly denied; higher-level claim unpreserved and not reviewed in interest of justice |
| Jury partial-verdict inquiry | People: court may ask jury about partial verdict when indicated by jury notes | Cisse: court's inquiry was coercive and pressured jury to reach verdict | Court: inquiry was proper exercise of discretion; not coercive; verdict valid |
| Admission of recorded jail phone calls | People: recordings admissible because defendant was warned, calls not privileged or compelled; no wiretap violation | Cisse: admission violated wiretapping laws, right to counsel, and due process; conversations were involuntary | Court: recordings admissible; defendant knowingly assumed risk by making case-related calls; no violation of wiretap law, counsel right, or due process; no CPL 60.45 instruction required |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence for reckless endangerment | People: evidence supports conviction | Cisse: conviction unsupported (legal sufficiency/weight) | Court: challenge unpreserved and declined in interest of justice; alternatively rejected on merits; verdict not against weight of evidence |
| Youthful offender treatment / sentence | People: standard sentencing discretion appropriate | Cisse: sought youthful offender status / reduced sentence | Court: denial of youthful-offender treatment was proper; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Reyes, 83 N.Y.2d 945 (1994) (distinguishing levels of police encounters)
- People v McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521 (2001) (level-one request supported by credible, noncriminal reason)
- People v LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470 (1998) (jurisdictional limits on appellate review of suppression rulings)
- People v Nicholson, 26 N.Y.3d 813 (2016) (appellate courts may consider record and proffer colloquy to interpret trial court findings)
- United States v Conley, 531 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2008) (inmate telephone calls recorded after notice admissible)