People v. Irvine
859 N.Y.S.2d 264
N.Y. App. Div.
2008
Check Treatment
Melbourne-based AI startup, Midpage, is building a legal document converter. It turns PDFs into clean, semantic HTML. It‘s intended to be used by legal professionals, so it must be very accurate. In this document, there are two legal opinions. One is a partial opinion (finishing the case of *People v McKeney* or similar), and the other is a complete opinion (*People v Irvine*). There is also a third partial opinion at the very end (*People v Rorris*). Following the instructions for multi-opinion documents, I should convert only the MAIN complete opinion: *The People of the State of New York v. Peter C. Irvine*. Note: The first page shows the end of a previous case and then the start of *People v Irvine*. I will skip the partial content at the top of page 866 and start with the case caption for *People v Irvine*.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v PETER C. IRVINE, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

February 16, 2007

859 NYS2d 264

Mercure, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Rogers, J.), rendered February 16, 2007, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the second degree (two counts), attempted sodomy in the first degree and attempted sodomy in the second degree.

In 2006, the victims, who are sisters born in 1985 and 1989, revealed to their family that defendant had sexually abused them over the course of several years while his wife was babysitting them. Defendant was thereafter charged in an indictment with numerous crimes arising out of the alleged abuse. Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the second degree (two counts), attempted sodomy in the first degree and at- tempted sodomy in the second degree.1 He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 7 to 11 years in prison, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Initially, we agree with defendant that the time frames in counts one, two and three are excessive. Counts one and two allege sexual abuse in the first degree occurring “between 1998 and 1999,” and count three alleges sexual abuse in the second degree occurring “on or about 2002.” An interval of one or two years is “far too excessive to particularize a single criminal act and afford defendant an adequate opportunity to prepare a defense” (

, lv denied
; see
;
;
). Similarly, defendant is correct that count seven of the indictment, as amended, is time-barred; inasmuch as that count was reduced to sexual abuse in the second degree, a misdemeanor (see Penal Law § 130.60 [2]), the statute of limitations expired on July 31, 2005, two years from the victim‘s 18th birthday (see CPL 30.10 [2] [c]; [3] [f]). The indictment, however, was not filed until June 2006. Although defendant failed to preserve these issues for review by raising the specific objections now advanced before us (see
), we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction and dismiss counts one, two, three and seven (see
, lv denied
;
; see also
, lv denied
).

With respect to the two remaining charges, counts eight and nine alleging attempted sodomy in the first and second degrees (see Penal Law § 110.00, former § 130.50 [1]; former § 130.45 [1]),2 we reject defendant‘s argument that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Viewing the evidence in a neutral light, particularly the victim‘s detailed testimony regarding the incident underlying counts eight and nine, we cannot say that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see

;
). Moreover, defendant‘s challenges to County Court‘s Molineux ruling are unavailing; the evidence of three prior acts involving one of the victims was properly admitted to demonstrate defendant‘s intent and the absence of mistake or accident (see
;
, lv denied
). Furthermore, defendant‘s testimony regarding a similar incident involving the victims’ older sister opened the door to her rebuttal testimony (see
; see also
, cert denied
).

We agree with defendant, however, that County Court erred in directing defense counsel to turn over notes protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is well settled that “[t]he attorney-client privilege, which . . . enables one seeking legal advice to communicate with counsel for this purpose secure in the knowledge that the contents of the exchange will not later be revealed against the client‘s wishes[,] . . . belongs to the client and attaches if information is disclosed in confidence to the attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or services” (

[citations omitted]; see
). Thus, “[a] defendant who takes the stand in his or her own defense may not be cross-examined concerning statements to his or her attorney” (
, lv denied
; see
;
).

Here, the record evinces that during the suppression hearing, the People requested defense counsel‘s notes pertaining to defendant‘s testimony. County Court then conducted an in camera review of notes that defense counsel had taken during interviews with defendant and directed a court attendant to make copies of the notes for the People. Thereafter, and without objection from defense counsel, the People cross-examined defendant about the contents of the notes, including, among other things, his statements to counsel that he had consensual sexual contact with one of the victims at her initiation. The People also cross-examined defendant on that subject at trial based upon testimony elicited during the suppression hearing regarding defense counsel‘s notes.

Inasmuch as there is no evidence that defendant waived his attorney-client privilege, the provision of the notes to the People and their cross-examination based upon the information therein was error (see

;
). Moreover, the material contained in the notes was directly contrary to the primary defense asserted throughout the trial—that any touching of the victims that may have occurred was either accidental or as the result of horseplay and never for sexual gratification. Thus, in our view, there is a sig- nificant probability that this error affected the verdict such that it was not harmless (see
;
; cf.
). In any event, even assuming that this particular error was harmless in itself, we would conclude that defendant was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel due to the cumulative effect of the errors made by defense counsel in revealing privileged communications without objection, and failing to seek dismissal of counts one, two and three for alleging facially excessive time frames and count seven, as amended, on the ground that it was time-barred (see
;
). Accordingly, this matter must be reversed and remitted for a new trial on counts eight and nine of the indictment.

Defendant‘s remaining arguments are either unpreserved for our review or have been rendered academic by our decision.

Cardona, P.J., Rose, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, counts one, two, three and seven of the indictment dismissed and matter remitted to the County Court of St. Lawrence County for a new trial on counts eight and nine of the indictment.

MERCURE, J.

Legal Opinion Document Converter Convert legal opinions (PDF, HTML, RTF) to clean, semantic HTML. If input is not a legal opinion, return only: null Output raw HTML only. No code fences. No commentary. Structure Case Information

Omit elements without data Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization) Attribute formats: midpage-case-name: shortName attribute uses Bluebook-style short name (first party v. first opposing party, standard abbreviations, omit “et al.” and procedural phrases) midpage-docket: docket attribute strips “No.” prefix (e.g., docket=“23-1456“) midpage-court: court attribute uses Bluebook abbreviation (e.g., court=“9th Cir.“) midpage-date: date attribute in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g., date=“2024-03-15“) midpage-rehearing: date attribute in YYYY-MM-DD format Example:

MALLONE SINGLETON WILLIAMS ESTATE & TRUST, acting on behalf of its living beneficiary, MALONE WILLIAMS SINGLETON v. Project S21 LLC, et al.

No. 23-1456

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 15, 2024

Rehearing Denied May 1, 2024

Pre-Opinion Content Include ALL content before the main opinion text: Syllabus / “Held:” sections Headnotes Attorney listings Amicus curiae Any other prefatory material This content is important — do not omit it. Opinion Body

— paragraphs

,

,

— section headings
— quoted provisions, contract language (wrap content in

)

    ,
      — lists — tables Multi-Opinion Documents If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document. Signature Block

      JOHN A. ROSS

      UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

      Skip signature images, preserve typed name and title. Images
      Image Placeholder #1
      Increment index for each image. Pagination Use to mark where each page starts. Page number priority: ECF PageID numbers (e.g., “PageID #: 35“) — preferred Reporter page numbers (e.g., “*324” or star pagination) Internal pagination (e.g., “Page 1 of 7“) — last resort Rules: Always start with immediately after (where X is the first page number) Place at word boundaries, not mid-word When a page break occurs mid-paragraph, place the marker inline Only include page markers where content follows — do not add a trailing marker at the end Page break between paragraphs:

      MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

      First paragraph entirely on page 123.

      Second paragraph starts on page 124.

      Page break mid-paragraph:

      Text starts on page 123 and continues on page 124.

      Page break in blockquote:

      First paragraph of quote on page 123.

      Second paragraph on page 124.

      Page break mid-sentence in blockquote:

      Quote starts on 123 and continues on 124.

      Page break in list:
      1. First item on page 123.
      2. Second item on page 124.
      Footnotes ALL footnotes in the source must appear in the output. Mark (inline, self-closing): 1 Content (immediately after the block element containing the mark): Placement rule: Place

Notes

1
Counts four, five and six of the indictment, charging sexual abuse in the first degree, were dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. Footnote text with formatting preserved. Long footnote starts here and continues on next page. The footnote content. The Honorable Jane Williams, presiding. Counts four, five and six of the indictment, charging sexual abuse in the first degree, were dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.
2
Effective November 2003, the crimes of “sodomy” in the first and second degrees were renamed “criminal sexual act” in the first and second degrees (see L 2003, ch 264, §§ 19, 20). Second footnote content. Effective November 2003, the crimes of “sodomy” in the first and second degrees were renamed “criminal sexual act” in the first and second degrees (see L 2003, ch 264, §§ 19, 20).