You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE DEEMED HARMLESS, A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE...
,

ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE DEEMED HARMLESS, A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO AND POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PROVIDE HEARSAY EVIDENCE AS MOLINEUX “BACKGROUND INFORMATION” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined it was error to allow a police officer to identify the defendant in a surveillance video, and it was error to allow police officers to testify about what they learned from others (hearsay) about defendant’s involvement in the shooting. Although the errors were deemed harmless because of the overwhelming evidence, these two rulings are significant. The court noted there is no Molineux exception for hearsay for so-called background information:

​“A lay witness may give an opinion concerning the identity of a person depicted in a surveillance if there is some basis for concluding that the witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the

than is the jury” … . Here, “there was no basis for concluding that the [officer] was more likely than the jury to correctly determine whether . . . defendant was depicted in the video” … .  The officer was not familiar with defendant, and there was no evidence showing that defendant had changed his appearance before trial … .

… [T]he court erred in permitting the People to elicit testimony from police officers regarding what they learned from others about defendant’s involvement in the shooting. The challenged testimony was hearsay that was not admissible under any cognizable exception to the hearsay rule. The People essentially argue that this testimony was admissible under People v Molineux (168 NY 264 [1901]) to complete the narrative with background information. We reject that argument and reiterate that “there is no Molineux exception to the rule against hearsay” … . There is also no general exception to the hearsay rule for testimony relating to background conduct, information, or explanation of a subject matter or event … . People v Harlow, 2021 NY Slip Op 03933, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION RAISED A VIABLE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE, ERROR IS A RARE EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Indictment Rendered Duplicitous by Trial Evidence Required Reversal
Proof of Normal Notification Procedure Sufficient to Demonstrate Defendant Was Notified of Lead-Paint-Injury Exclusion in Policy
RAPE THIRD IS NOT AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF RAPE FIRST; THE VERDICT SHEET INCLUDED AN IMPERMISSIBLE ANNOTATION, MATTER REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO THE ANNOTATION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION TO A PROBATION VIOLATION INVALID; THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE ADMISSION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S “PROMOTING A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD” CONVICTION WAS REVERSED ON THE LAW; THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A “SEX OFFENDER” (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE INSURED’S WATER-DAMAGE CLAIM WAS FRAUDULENTLY INFLATED; INSURER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISCLAIMING COVERAGE (FOURTH DEPT).
COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR THE ISSUANCE AND QUASHING OF SUBPOENAS IN THIS FRAUD ACTION STEMMING FROM HIGH CREDITWORTHINESS RATINGS GIVEN TO RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (FOURTH 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WHERE A MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION IS BASED UPON EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD... IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANT’S AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR NEW...