You are here: / / DNA EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THE COMPLAINANT’S SEXUAL HISTORY PROPERLY...
,

DNA EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THE COMPLAINANT’S SEXUAL HISTORY PROPERLY EXCLUDED AS A VIOLATION OF THE RAPE SHIELD LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly refused to allow defendant to present DNA evidence to demonstrate the complainant’s sexual history in this sexual offense case:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to preclude the introduction of certain DNA evidence at trial. Introducing evidence of additional DNA donors not linked to the defendant for the purpose of demonstrating the complainant’s sexual history with persons other than the defendant falls “squarely within the ambit of the Rape Shield Law, which generally prohibits [e]vidence of a victim’s sexual conduct’ in a prosecution for a sex offense under Penal Law article 130 (CPL 60.42) because such evidence . . . serves only to harass the alleged victim and confuse the jurors'” … . Moreover, the evidence sought to be admitted was not relevant to any defense … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, introducing the evidence through a witness other than the complainant does not render the Rape Shield Law inapplicable … . People v Hubsher, 2019 NY Slip Op 07416, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

You might also like
ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW BECAUSE OF CLIENT’S FAILURE TO PAY AND LACK OF COOPERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR BRINGING MERITLESS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
Valid Waiver of Appeal Does Not Preclude Review of Whether Ineffective Assistance Affected Voluntariness of Plea
DEFENDANT’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFFS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY SLIPPERY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
Validating Petition Not Sufficiently Particularized
FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY OF RECOVERY REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT-VILLAGE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF ITS STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT REMAIN VALID AFTER DEFENDANT PLED... THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED AT THE STAGE WHEN THE...