New trial ordered in NY robbery and assault case

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has ordered a new trial in an assault and robbery case.

Defendant Chester Dortch was convicted in February 2018 before state Supreme Court Justice Alex R. Renzi of first-degree robbery, second-degree robbery, and second-degree assault.

But the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed the convictions and granted a new trial.

Dortch allegedly cut a woman with a knife and forcibly stole property from her while they were seated in a car owned by Dortch’s girlfriend.

The convictions were reversed, partly, because Renzi “failed to respond meaningfully to a jury note,” according to the decision from the Fourth Department.

A failure to comply with a jury’s request for information during deliberations is not always reversible error. But it is when the failure to respond seriously prejudices the defendant, the court wrote.

In Dortch’s case, the jury submitted a note requesting readback of testimony from the victim “about the time she was in the car on Glenwood until she was out of the car from both defense and the DA’s questions.”

Renzi read back only testimony from the victim on direct examination about the time that she was inside the car. He did not order the readback of any cross-examination, which included questioning about inconsistencies in the victim’s account of the incident.

“Despite the jury’s request to hear questioning from both the prosecution and the defense, the court did not request clarification from the jury whether they wanted to hear the defense’s cross-examination regarding the incident,” the panel wrote.

The court ruled that Renzi’s response “prejudiced the defense.” They found that he abused his discretion and failed to adequately answer the jurors’ note and created a “false impression of the nature of the evidence.”

Renzi also improperly refused to conduct a suppression hearing regarding the search of the vehicle and the seizure of the knife during that search, the Fourth Department wrote.

Dortch had standing to seek suppression of the evidence, the court ruled.

The court also concluded that Dortch “raised a factual dispute regarding the voluntariness of the consent to search the vehicle given by the owner of the vehicle.”

Body camera footage of a conversation between police officers showed that they discussed a plan to threaten to seize the vehicle from Dortch’s girlfriend to get her consent to search the vehicle.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035