You are here: / / THE EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED THE SEIZED SUBSTANCES CONTAINED HEROIN OR COCAINE...
,

THE EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED THE SEIZED SUBSTANCES CONTAINED HEROIN OR COCAINE RELIED ON COMPARISONS WITH STANDARD SAMPLES IN THEIR LABS BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF THE SAMPLES; THEREFORE THE EXPERTS’ OPINIONS RELIED ON EVIDENCE NOT IN THE RECORD; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the convictions which relied on expert evidence that the seized substances contained cocaine or heroin, determined the experts relied on evidence which was not in the record. Therefore a proper foundation had not been laid for the conclusions that the substances contained cocaine and heroin:

Here, each of the People’s five experts testified to arriving at the conclusion that the substance tested was either heroin or cocaine by comparing the substance with a standard sample in the laboratory that was known to be heroin or cocaine. When questioned about the accuracy of the known standard, the experts testified generally that the sample reference material was obtained from chemical manufacturers. Some of the experts testified that the samples came with certifications, which might have established the sample’s accuracy, but no such certifications were offered into evidence. Some of the experts testified that the sample reference material generally is tested upon arrival at the laboratory, but none of the experts could testify to personal knowledge of the testing of the known standard that she or he used in this case, and the People did not introduce any evidence establishing that such independent testing had occurred. …

Although an expert’s testimony that a substance contains a narcotic drug may be admissible when it is not based solely upon comparative tests using known standards, but is also based on other tests not involving known standards, or other facts in evidence … , here, two of the experts relied solely upon the comparative tests, and their testimony should have been stricken …. Further, while the other three experts testified that before using the comparative tests to confirm the identity of the substance, she or he employed one or more presumptive tests, each of those presumptive tests merely demonstrated the possibility that cocaine or heroin might be present in the substance, but did not confirm the presence of the narcotic drug. It was the comparison to the known standard that enabled each expert to conclude that the substance tested was heroin or cocaine … . People v Ramis, 2023 NY Slip Op 01013, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: If an expert’s opinion relies on information that is not in the record, a proper foundation for the opinion has not been laid. Here the experts’ opinions that seized substances contained cocaine and heroin were based on comparison with samples in the lab, but no evidence demonstrating the accuracy of the samples was presented.

 

You might also like
Writ of Coram Nobis Granted—Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT). ​
Agreement to Assist Spouse in Obtaining a Visa Did Not Render the Marriage a Sham and the Separation Agreement Unenforceable/Agreement to Pay for One-Half of a Jointly Held Business Could Be Severed from Any Arguably Unenforceable Portions of the Separation Agreement/Even Where a Marriage is Annulled as Void or Voidable, Equitable Distribution Rules Apply
THE NONPARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED AND THE RELATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF SHE DID NOT LIVE AT THE ADDRESS WHERE THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED TO WARRANT A HEARING; THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT HER FAILURE TO UPDATE HER ADDRESS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES WAS TO PREVENT SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
Circumstances Under Which Contractor Can Be Held Liable for Slip on Snow and Ice 
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BASED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON GROUNDS NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THOSE GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE NOT BEFORE IT; THE ORDER SETTLING A CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID WAGES AND OVERTIME SHOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED INVALID CERTAIN OPT-OUT STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND WERE NOT OTHERWISE BEFORE THE COURT (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

​ THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL... DEFENDANT WAS NOT FREE TO LEAVE AFTER A STREET STOP AND WAS INTERROGATED WITHOUT...