You are here: / / CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.30 (1-a) DOES NOT ALLOW A POST-TRIAL CHALLENGE...
,

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.30 (1-a) DOES NOT ALLOW A POST-TRIAL CHALLENGE TO DNA EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL.

The Second Department determined Criminal Procedure Law 440.30 (1-a) did not authorize defendant to challenge, in a post-trial motion, DNA evidence which was introduced at trial. The statute deals only with post-trial DNA testing:

CPL 440.30 (1-a) (a) (1) provides that a defendant may bring a postconviction motion requesting forensic DNA testing of “specified evidence.” The statute further provides that “the court shall grant the application for forensic DNA testing of such evidence upon its determination that if a DNA test had been conducted on such evidence, and if the results had been admitted in the trial resulting in the judgment, there exists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.30 [1-a] [a] [1]). As the Court of Appeals has recognized, CPL 440.30 (1-a) was enacted to establish a new procedure for defendants to secure DNA testing of specified evidence … ..

Defendant here has not requested DNA testing of any evidence, and instead seeks to have expert testimony adduced for the purpose of challenging the accuracy of scientific evidence that was actually presented at trial. Inasmuch as CPL 440.30 (1-a) does not address requests for expert testimony, the provision is inapplicable to defendant’s request. People v Ramos, 2016 NY Slip Op 05885, 3rd Dept 8-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.30 (1-a) DOES NOT ALLOW A POST-TRIAL CHALLENGE TO DNA EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.30 (1-a) DOES NOT ALLOW A POST-TRIAL CHALLENGE TO DNA EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL)/DNA (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.30 (1-a) DOES NOT ALLOW A POST-TRIAL CHALLENGE TO DNA EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL)

/by
You might also like
No “Reasonable Suspicion,” Defendant Should Not Have Been Stopped and Detained.
THE SECOND TRIAL VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROHIBITION; THE FIRST TRIAL COULD HAVE CONTINUED WITH ELEVEN JURORS AFTER A JUROR WAS DISQUALIFIED DURING DELIBERATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS NOT MET, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED BY MAKING A FINDING IN A MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER.
ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE.
PLAINTIFF BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS AWARE OF THE CRACK IN THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER WHICH HE TRIPPED AND FELL, SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, CONCURRING JUSTICE ARGUED THAT THE CRACK WAS NOT A RISK INHERENT IN THE SPORT, BUT WAS CONSTRAINED TO AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY BASED ON PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
Property Owners, Absent a Regulation, Do Not Have a Duty to Make Sure Vegetation Does Not Obstruct Drivers’ View/Here the Cited Code Violations Were Not Intended to Impose that Duty
BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE OMITTED A PORTION OF THE BURGLARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBJECT, THE PEOPLE ARE HELD TO THE PROOF REQUIRED BY THE INCOMPLETE INSTRUCTIONS; THE BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT CLEAR-CUT AND DISPOSITIVE (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL COURT MAY NOT SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 ON A GROUND WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL AS A MATTER OF LAW–HERE THE ALLEGED FACTUAL INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE CONVICTION OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD AND THE ACQUITTALS ON ALL THE OTHER SEXUAL-OFFENSE COUNTS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

JUDGE FAILED TO GIVE COUNSEL MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE,... COURT MUST DETERMINE VALUE OF MARITAL PROPERTY, DESPITE PAUCITY OF SUBMITTED...