You are here: / Criminal Law
,

THEFT DID NOT WARRANT UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have imposed an upward departure from the presumptive risk level based upon a theft:

The defendant’s commission of a theft while the underlying criminal prosecution was pending was a factor not taken into account in the Guidelines … . Moreover, the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed that theft. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in upwardly departing from the presumptive risk level on that basis. That theft, an opportunistic nonviolent theft committed while the defendant was house-sitting for a friend, did not indicate that the presumptive risk level would result in an underassessment of the risk of sexual reoffense … .

In sum, the defendant was properly assessed 75 points … , within the range for a presumptive designation as a level two offender. However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in upwardly departing from the presumptive risk level. Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from and designate the defendant a level two sex offender. People v Garcia, 2017 NY Slip Op 06199, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, THEFT DID NOT WARRANT UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (THEFT DID NOT WARRANT UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL (SECOND DEPT))/SORA (THEFT DID NOT WARRANT UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL (SECOND DEPT))

,

FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined handguns found inside the console of an SUV were properly suppressed. The police stopped the SUV based upon a report of a shooting involving a similar vehicle. After the defendants were handcuffed and removed from the SUV, but before the eyewitnesses to shooting arrived, the police opened the center console and found a firearm. The eyewitnesses subsequently told the police the defendants were not involved in the shooting:

On January 14, 2015, just before 9:30 p.m., two police officers responded to a report of a shooting involving a white Infiniti SUV with several occupants, including one female. Approximately 15 minutes later and eight or nine blocks away from the location of the reported shooting, the officers observed an SUV matching that description parked in a strip mall parking lot, and a woman standing next to it. As the officers approached in their vehicle, the woman walked away, and the driver of the SUV began to drive away. The officers pulled the SUV over, exited their vehicle, and approached the SUV on foot, one officer on each side of it. The officers observed that the two male occupants, the defendants herein, were leaning toward each other, and each had an elbow on the SUV’s center console. The officers did not observe any contraband or firearms inside the SUV. The driver complied with the officers’ request to provide his license and registration, following which the defendants were removed from the SUV, frisked, handcuffed, and seated on a nearby curb to wait for eyewitnesses to the shooting to arrive. Additional officers arrived, one of whom approached the SUV and, noticing that the center console was slightly elevated, opened it and found a handgun. The defendants were then arrested. The eyewitnesses subsequently arrived and confirmed that the defendants were not the persons who had committed the shooting. A second handgun was later found in the center console.

“[A]bsent probable cause, it is unlawful for a police officer to invade the interior of a stopped vehicle once the suspects have been removed and patted down without incident, as any immediate threat to the officers’ safety has consequently been eliminated” … .

Under the circumstances here, where the defendants had been removed from the SUV, the police lacked probable cause for a warrantless search of its center console, and the weapons found as a result were properly suppressed … . People v Morris, 2017 NY Slip Op 06194, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION, FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW,  FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s statement providing the searching parole officers with the combination to a safe and the guns found in the safe should have been suppressed. The search of defendant’s girlfriend’s apartment was conducted after defendant, who was present in the apartment, violated parole. Defendant was handcuffed and in his underwear when the officer asked for the combination. The officers had already found other weapons and counterfeit DVD’s in the apartment. The People unsuccessfully argued the request for the combination was not designed to elicit an incriminating response:

The question—which arose after the parole officers had found counterfeit DVDs, a box filled with daggers, and a .22 caliber revolver—had only one logical purpose: to elicit a response from the defendant disclosing the combination to the safe, which would possibly lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence, and which would link the safe to the defendant … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials as to the combination to the safe, and should have suppressed the two handguns recovered from the safe, as well as a handwritten statement the defendant later made to the police about the handguns, as fruits of the poisonous tree … . Without this evidence, there could not be legally sufficient evidence to support convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree based on those two handguns, or based on the defendant’s possession of three or more firearms. Accordingly, the convictions of those three offenses must be vacated, and those three counts of the indictment must be dismissed. People v Blacks, 2017 NY Slip Op 06186, Second Dept 8-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE ( DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not follow the O”Rama procedure when addressing two notes sent out by the jury. Although the error was not preserved by objection, it was deemed a mode of proceedings error. The notes asked for a readback of testimony and instructions on the charged offense. Although the judge complied with the requests, the jury notes were not marked as exhibits, were not read to counsel, and counsel were not given an opportunity to respond to the notes outside the presence of the jury:

In People v O’Rama, the Court of Appeals set forth the procedure for handling communications from the jury in accordance with CPL 310.30. “The Court of Appeals held that whenever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge, it should be marked as a court exhibit and, before the jury is recalled to the courtroom, read into the record in the presence of counsel'” … . ” After the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses. The court should then ordinarily apprise counsel of the substance of the responsive instruction it intends to give so that counsel can seek whatever modifications are deemed appropriate before the jury is exposed to any potentially harmful information. Once the jury is returned to the courtroom, the communication should be read in open court'”… . Where a trial court fails to provide counsel “with meaningful notice of the precise content of a substantive juror inquiry, a mode of proceedings error occurs, and reversal is therefore required even in the absence of an objection” … .

Here, although the defendant failed to object to the manner in which the Supreme Court handled the two notes, under the circumstances of this case, the court violated O’Rama and committed a mode of proceedings error, obviating the need for preservation, by failing to provide the defendant with notice of the “precise contents” of the notes prior to giving its responses … . People v Webster, 2017 NY Slip Op 06198, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/JURY NOTES  (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/O’RAMA PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY NOTES, FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))  

,

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A SWORN JUROR, AN ATTORNEY, WHOSE FIRM REPRESENTED THE MURDER VICTIM’S PARENTS IN AN ACTION TO GAIN CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANT’S AND VICTIM’S CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON IMPLIED BIAS GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined that defendant’s for cause challenge to a sworn juror should have been granted. Defendant was accused of killing his ex-wife, Powell. The juror was a partner in a law firm which represented Powell’s parents in their action to gain custody of Powell’s (and defendant’s) child.

… [W]here the challenging party acquires new information that had not been previously available after a juror has already been sworn, the trial court may entertain a challenge made for cause made before the first trial witness is sworn … . …

The governing law dictates that a juror should be discharged for cause where the juror is shown to have an implied bias; that is, if the juror shares a relationship with any person involved in the trial the nature of which is likely to preclude him or her from rendering an impartial verdict … .

… It bears noting that the juror did not personally represent Powell’s parents, and that the relationship shared by her firm and Powell’s family was purely of a professional nature. Nonetheless, the law firm owed Powell’s family a clear and paramount duty to represent their interests. As the juror recognized and stated in response to the court’s inquiry, the conflicts that arise therefrom — under the particular circumstances presented here — are imputed to her by law … . Further, the effect of the juror’s involvement cannot be said to be remote, as the verdict reached by this jury would inevitably affect the custody proceedings; indeed, by direct application of statutory law, a guilty verdict in this criminal action necessarily precluded an award of custody or visitation to defendant in that matter … .

As a matter of well-established law, a juror’s assurances of impartiality are inadequate to cure an implied bias … . People v Powell, 2017 NY Slip Op 06104, Third Dept 8-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, IMPLIED BIAS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A SWORN JUROR, AND ATTORNEY,  WHOSE FIRM REPRESENTED THE MURDER VICTIM’S PARENTS IN AN ACTION TO GAIN CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANT’S AND VICTIM’S CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON IMPLIED BIAS GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A SWORN JUROR , AN ATTORNEY, WHOSE FIRM REPRESENTED THE MURDER VICTIM’S PARENTS IN AN ACTION TO GAIN CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANT’S AND VICTIM’S CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON IMPLIED BIAS GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (IMPLIED BIAS, CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A SWORN JUROR, AN ATTORNEY, WHOSE FIRM REPRESENTED THE MURDER VICTIM’S PARENTS IN AN ACTION TO GAIN CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANT’S AND VICTIM’S CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON IMPLIED BIAS GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT))/IMPLIED BIAS (ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A SWORN JUROR, AN ATTORNEY, WHOSE FIRM REPRESENTED THE MURDER VICTIM’S PARENTS IN AN ACTION TO GAIN CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANT’S AND VICTIM’S CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON IMPLIED BIAS GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT))

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined a for cause challenge to a juror should have been granted:

Here, prospective juror number 12 stated unequivocally that her experience as a crime victim, which she described as “traumatic,” would make it hard for her to be fair and impartial in this case. The prospective juror’s follow-up statement that she would “have to hear the case” before she could make a decision did not rehabilitate her initial response … .

Inasmuch as the sum of the prospective juror’s statements revealed a state of mind likely to preclude her from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial … , the challenge for cause should have been allowed … . People v Hutthinson, 2017 NY Slip Op 03774, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

,

ADMISSION OF A CHART SHOWING THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF A GANG WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (SECOND DEPT).

Although the facts of the case were not spelled out, the Second Department determined the introduction of a chart showing the structure and membership of a gang was (harmless) error:

We agree with the defendant that under the circumstances here, it was improper to admit into evidence a summary chart depicting the gang hierarchy and membership of the gang, which identified the gang’s members by name and their associated arrest photos … .  Nevertheless, the error was harmless, as the proof of the defendant’s guilt of arson in the first degree and conspiracy in the second degree was overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that, but for the error, the verdict would have been less adverse … . People v Burkette, 2017 NY Slip Op 06082, Second Dept 8-9-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, GANGS, ADMISSION OF A CHART SHOWING THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF A GANG WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, GANGS, ADMISSION OF A CHART SHOWING THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF A GANG WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (SECOND DEPT))/GANGS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE,  ADMISSION OF A CHART SHOWING THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF A GANG WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (SECOND DEPT))

IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT, SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED A CRIME OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED; PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE ASSAULT AND ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE DIFFERENT, SENTENCES MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the sentencing court erroneously considered a crime of which defendant was acquitted in sentencing. The Second Department further noted that the People did not demonstrate that the assault and robbery convictions were based upon different underlying facts, therefore the sentences must run concurrently:

Certain remarks made by the sentencing court demonstrate that it improperly considered a crime of which the defendant was acquitted as a basis for sentencing. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted … for resentencing … . Further, since the People failed to establish that the acts underlying the conviction of assault in the first degree were separate and distinct from the acts underlying the conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree, the sentences imposed on remittal are to run concurrently … . People v Newman, 2017 NY Slip Op 06086, Second Dept 8-9-17

CRIMINAL LAW (IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT, SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED A CRIME OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE ASSAULT AND ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE DIFFERENT, SENTENCES MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (SECOND DEPT))/SENTENCING (IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT, SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED A CRIME OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE ASSAULT AND ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE DIFFERENT, SENTENCES MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (SECOND DEPT))/CONCURRENT SENTENCES (IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT, SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED A CRIME OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE ASSAULT AND ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE DIFFERENT, SENTENCES MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (SECOND DEPT))

,

(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE GANG AND THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SPECIFIC MEMBERS, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW IN EVIDENCE A CHART DESCRIBING THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE GANG (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined it was (harmless) error to allow a detective to testify as an expert about the structure of the gang and the relationships among specific gang members. It was also (harmless) error to admit a chart describing the structure and membership of the gang:

​

The defendant correctly contends that the Supreme Court erred by, in effect, permitting the investigating detective in the case to testify as an expert not only regarding the general hierarchy of the gang to which the defendant belonged, but also as to the relationships between specific gang members, which he knew only as a result of his own participation in the investigation. Allowing the detective, who was intimately involved in the investigation into the gang-related arson, to testify as an expert created a danger that he would end up testifying beyond any cognizable field of expertise as an apparently omniscient expositor of the facts of the case, thereby usurping the fact-finding role of the jury … . It was also improper, under the circumstances here, to admit into evidence a summary chart depicting the gang hierarchy and membership of the gang, which identified the gang’s members by name and their associated arrest photos … . People v Vazquez, 2017 NY Slip Op 06092, Second Dept 8-9-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE GANG AND THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SPECIFIC MEMBERS, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW IN EVIDENCE A CHART DESCRIBING THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE GANG (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE GANG AND THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SPECIFIC MEMBERS, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW IN EVIDENCE A CHART DESCRIBING THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE GANG (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (CRIMINAL LAW, GANGS, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE GANG AND THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SPECIFIC MEMBERS, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW IN EVIDENCE A CHART DESCRIBING THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE GANG (SECOND DEPT))/GANGS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE GANG AND THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SPECIFIC MEMBERS, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW IN EVIDENCE A CHART DESCRIBING THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE GANG (SECOND DEPT))

,

ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, although finding the error harmless, determined the introduction of DNA evidence without testimony by the analysts violated the Confrontation Clause:

​

The defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause (see US Const Sixth Amend) were violated when the Supreme Court admitted into evidence lab reports from a nontestifying DNA analyst which directly linked the defendant to the crime … .

“Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis” … . “Constitutional error requires reversal unless the error’s impact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt'” … . This determination is based on a review of the ” entire record'”… . In order for the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt must be overwhelming, and there must be “no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant’s conviction” … .

Here, apart from the erroneously admitted evidence, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. People v Tsintzelis, 2017 NY Slip Op 05980, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DNA, ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA, ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT))/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (DNA, ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (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