New York Criminal Lawyer Blog
In People v. N.H., 2026 NY Slip Op 02437, the New York Court of Appeals considered whether a defendant may waive a hearing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) as a condition of a plea agreement. The DVSJA is a New York law enacted in 2019 that allows certain criminal defendants who are survivors of domestic violence to seek reduced sentences if they can show that the abuse they suffered was a significant contributing factor to their criminal conduct and that a standard sentence would be unduly harsh. The case required the Court to determine whether a defendant could give up the right to seek that relief as part of a negotiated plea agreement.
Introduction
The Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act was enacted in 2019 to provide sentencing courts with greater flexibility when dealing with defendants whose criminal conduct was significantly influenced by domestic violence. The law allows certain defendants to seek reduced sentences if they can demonstrate that abuse played a substantial role in their criminal behavior and that a standard sentence would be unduly harsh.
In People v. N.H., the Court of Appeals addressed whether a prosecutor may require a defendant to give up the right to a DVSJA hearing in exchange for a favorable plea bargain. The court held that such a waiver is not permitted.
Background Facts
N.H. was charged with multiple serious offenses, including attempted murder and first-degree assault, arising from an incident at a party outside her home. According to evidence submitted by the defense, N.H. had a long history of exposure to domestic violence. Reports prepared by a psychologist and a forensic social worker described years of physical and emotional abuse by her former boyfriend, R.L., who was also the father of her child. The reports stated that the abuse began during her pregnancy and continued over several years.
Defense counsel sought relief under the DVSJA. Alternatively, counsel requested a hearing under Penal Law § 60.12 to establish that N.H. qualified for a reduced sentence. The application included expert reports discussing the effects of trauma, domestic violence, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Before any DVSJA hearing took place, the prosecution offered a plea agreement. Under the agreement, N.H. would plead guilty to first-degree reckless assault and receive a sentence of five years in prison followed by five years of post-release supervision. However, the plea offer required N.H. to waive her request for a DVSJA hearing and waive her right to appeal.
Although defense counsel argued that requiring such a waiver conflicted with the purpose of the DVSJA, N.H. accepted the plea agreement. The trial court accepted the plea and imposed the agreed-upon sentence. The Appellate Division affirmed.
N.H. then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue
Can a defendant waive a hearing under Penal Law § 60.12 as a condition of a negotiated plea agreement?
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that a DVSJA hearing cannot be waived as a condition of a plea agreement.
The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings.
Discussion
The Court began by examining the purpose behind the DVSJA. The Legislature enacted the law after determining that traditional sentencing rules often failed to account for the impact domestic violence had on survivors who later became involved in the criminal justice system. The Legislature concluded that many survivors received sentences that were harsher than necessary because courts lacked adequate tools to consider the effects of abuse.
Under Penal Law § 60.12, a defendant may seek an alternative sentence by proving three things:
- The defendant was a victim of substantial domestic violence.
- The abuse significantly contributed to the criminal conduct.
- A standard sentence would be unduly harsh.
The statute requires a hearing at which the court may receive testimony, documents, and other evidence before determining whether the defendant qualifies for relief.
The Court explained that the DVSJA was not merely intended to benefit individual defendants. Instead, it represented a legislative effort to correct what lawmakers viewed as a systemic problem in how domestic violence survivors were treated during sentencing. The court stated that allowing prosecutors to require defendants to waive DVSJA hearings would undermine that legislative purpose.
The Court also emphasized the realities of plea bargaining. Because most criminal cases are resolved through guilty pleas rather than trials, allowing prosecutors to require DVSJA waivers would likely prevent many eligible defendants from ever obtaining the hearings the Legislature intended them to have. The court reasoned that such a result would significantly weaken the protections created by the statute.
The Court acknowledged that defendants often waive important rights during plea negotiations. However, it explained that some rights are too important to be surrendered because they involve public policy interests that extend beyond the circumstances of a single defendant. According to the Court, the DVSJA falls into that category because it reflects a legislative determination that courts must have an opportunity to evaluate the effects of domestic violence before imposing sentence.
The dissent disagreed. The dissenting judges argued that the statute contains no language expressly prohibiting waiver and that defendants should be allowed to decide for themselves whether accepting a plea agreement is preferable to pursuing uncertain DVSJA relief. The dissent also warned that invalidating plea agreements containing DVSJA waivers could ultimately expose some defendants to greater sentencing risks if plea offers are withdrawn.
The majority rejected those arguments and concluded that enforcing such waivers would conflict with the Legislature’s objectives.
Conclusion
In People v. N.H., the New York Court of Appeals held that a defendant cannot waive a Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act hearing as a condition of a plea agreement. The court concluded that the DVSJA reflects a legislative effort to address systemic sentencing problems affecting survivors of domestic violence and that allowing waiver of DVSJA hearings would undermine that purpose. As a result, courts must ensure that eligible defendants retain the opportunity to seek a hearing under Penal Law § 60.12 before sentencing.
If you have questions about sentencing, plea agreements, or the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act, contact an experienced New York criminal defense lawyer. An attorney can evaluate your case, explain your rights, and help determine whether DVSJA relief may be available.