You are here: / / Destruction of Video that May Have Been Relevant to the Defense Required...
,

Destruction of Video that May Have Been Relevant to the Defense Required Adverse Inference Charge

The defendant was charged with (and convicted of) assaulting jail deputies.  A video which may have captured at least some of the incidents was destroyed by “recording over” after 30 days, a jail policy. A request for any relevant electronic surveillance was made in the omnibus motion.  The indictment included incidents in November, 2006, and January, 2007. By the time the omnibus motion was made, only the video of the January incident was still available (pursuant to the 30-day “record over” policy).  The trial court agreed to give an adverse inference charge with respect to the January incident, but refused to give the adverse inference charge for the November incident.  The appellate division determined the adverse inference charge needn’t have been given because there was no evidence the video evidence would have been exculpatory.  In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the law of evidence required that the adverse inference charge be given:

We resolve this case, following the approach taken by the Maryland Court of Appeals in Cost v State (417 Md 360, 10 A3d 184 [2010]) by holding that, under the New York law of evidence, a permissive adverse inference charge should be given where a defendant, using reasonable diligence, has requested evidence reasonably likely to be material, and where that evidence has been destroyed by agents of the State.  People v Handy, 35, CtApp 3-28-13

 

You might also like
HEARSAY STATEMENT BY BYSTANDER WHO OBSERVED DEFENDANT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS A PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION.
Uncle Was Properly Found to Be a “Person Legally Responsible” for the Abused Child—He Was Therefore a Proper “Respondent” in a Child Abuse/Neglect Proceeding
HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO ALLOW ADDING A PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO TESTIFY WAS DEEMED A VIOLATION OF THE WRITTEN COOPERATION AGREEMENT, HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP).
THE DRUGS IN DEFENDANT’S CAR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN “PLAIN VIEW” IF THE POLICE HAD NOT ILLEGALLY DETAINED DEFENDANT OUTSIDE THE CAR BEFORE LOOKING INSIDE THE CAR; SUPPRESSION GRANTED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
County Can Charge Towns the Amounts Paid by the County On Behalf of Community College Students Residing in the Towns, Even Though the State, by Statute, Undertook the Responsibility to Reimburse the Counties for those Expenses—One Statute Does Not Impliedly Repeal Another Unless It Is Impossible to Give Effect to Both
TOWING OF DEFENDANT’S CAR (AND INVENTORY SEARCH) AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST FOR SHOPLIFTING WAS CONSISTENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT’S WRITTEN POLICY.
PRE-SENTENCE INCARCERATION, AS PART OF A PLEA AGREEMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE ILLEGAL, THEREFORE OBJECTION TO SENTENCE WAS SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; CRITERIA FOR OUTLEY HEARING EXPLAINED.

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

1983 Action Against Department of Corrections Is Not Brought in the Court of... Failure to Apply the Merger Doctrine In a Kidnapping Case is not a “Mode of...