You are here: / Evidence
,

CHILD’S STATEMENTS ABOUT RESPONDENT PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM NEGLECT PROCEEDING INVOLVING A DIFFERENT CHILD, NO SHOWING RESPONDENT WAS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS.

The Second Department determined Family Court properly dismissed the neglect petition without prejudice. The petitioner failed to establish the respondent father was legally responsible for the child whose statements petitioner sought to use as evidence. (The neglect proceedings did not involve the child who made the statements):

Here, the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence … . At the fact-finding hearing, the petitioner presented a caseworker as its only witness and documentation of the father’s criminal offenses. The caseworker testified to previous statements allegedly made to her by a child complainant in one of the respondent’s prior criminal cases. Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) provides that “previous statements made by the child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in evidence” (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi]). Such statements are admissible in a child protective proceeding, even when the child is not the subject of the proceeding … . However, child protective proceedings encompass only abuse or neglect by a person who is a parent or other person legally responsible for the child’s care … , and the sections regarding admissibility of previous statements of an abused or neglected child refer to a child in the care of the respondent … .

A person legally responsible includes a custodian of the child, which “may include any person continually or at regular intervals found in the same household as the child when the conduct of such person causes or contributes to the abuse or neglect of the child” … . In determining whether a respondent is such a custodian, the court should consider the particular circumstances, including “the frequency and nature of the contact between the child and respondent, the nature and extent of the control exercised by the respondent over the child’s environment, the duration of the respondent’s contact with the child, and the respondent’s relationship to the child’s parent(s)”… . A person legally responsible is not a caregiver who has fleeting or temporary care of a child, such as a supervisor of a play date … .

Here, the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent was a person legally responsible for the child whose statements it wished to introduce through the testimony of the caseworker … . Matter of Kaliia F. (Jason F.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01691, 2nd Dept 3-8-17

 

FAMILY LAW (CHILD’S STATEMENTS ABOUT RESPONDENT PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM NEGLECT PROCEEDING INVOLVING A DIFFERENT CHILD, NO SHOWING RESPONDENT WAS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, (CHILD’S STATEMENTS ABOUT RESPONDENT PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM NEGLECT PROCEEDING INVOLVING A DIFFERENT CHILD, NO SHOWING RESPONDENT WAS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS)/HEARSAY (FAMILY LAW, (CHILD’S STATEMENTS ABOUT RESPONDENT PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM NEGLECT PROCEEDING INVOLVING A DIFFERENT CHILD, NO SHOWING RESPONDENT WAS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS)

,

NOT NECSSARY TO PROVE WHICH OF TWO CARETAKERS WITH ACCESS TO THE CHILD ACTUALLY INJURED THE CHILD.

The Second Department determined Family Court properly found both mother and caretaker responsible for child abuse. It was not necessary to prove which of the two caused injury to the child:

The Family Court Act defines an abused child, inter alia, as a child whose parent, or other person legally responsible for his or her care, “(i) inflicts or allows to be inflicted upon such child physical injury by other than accidental means which causes or creates a substantial risk of death, or serious or protracted disfigurement, or protracted impairment of physical or emotional health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ or (ii) creates or allows to be created a substantial risk of physical injury to such child by other than accidental means which would be likely to cause [such injury]” … . Family Court Act § 1046(a)(ii) provides that a prima facie case of child abuse or neglect may be established by evidence of (1) an injury to a child that would ordinarily not occur absent an act or omission of the respondents, and (2) that the respondents were the caretakers of the child at the time the injury occurred … . “A parent who stands by while others inflict harm may be found responsible for that harm” … .

Section 1046(a)(ii) “authorizes a method of proof which is closely analogous to the negligence rule of res ipsa loquitur” … . The statute also permits findings of abuse against more than one caretaker where multiple individuals had access to the child in the period in which the injury occurred … . In such cases, the petitioner is not required to establish which caregiver actually inflicted the injury or whether they did so together … . Matter of Zoey D. (Simona D.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01689, 2nd Dept 3-8-17

 

FAMILY LAW (NOT NECSSARY TO PROVE WHICH OF TWO CARETAKERS WITH ACCESS TO THE CHILD ACTUALLY INJURED THE CHILD)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, CHILD ABUSE, NOT NECSSARY TO PROVE WHICH OF TWO CARETAKERS WITH ACCESS TO THE CHILD ACTUALLY INJURED THE CHILD)/CHILD ABUSE (NOT NECSSARY TO PROVE WHICH OF TWO CARETAKERS WITH ACCESS TO THE CHILD ACTUALLY INJURED THE CHILD)

,

DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER-ASSAULT CASE, DEFENDANT, WHO PROVIDED THE GUN TO THE SHOOTER, WAS DEEMED TO SHARE THE SHOOTER’S INTENT.

The Second Department, in an extensive decision with an equally extensive dissent, determined defendant was entitled to a new trial on manslaughter and assault charges because the trial judge did not instruct the jury on the justification defense. Defendant was not the shooter. Defendant provided the gun to the shooter (Martinez-Mendoza) during a confrontation with a group of people outside a bar, where defendant had been beaten up. Because it was alleged defendant shared the shooter’s intent, and because it was possible (despite conflicting evidence) the shooter feared the use of deadly force when he fired, defendant was entitled to the justification jury charge:

At the outset, we note that whether the defendant intended for Martinez-Mendoza to use the gun he provided or knew that he would use the gun does not preclude a defense of justification … .

… [H]ere, some evidence contradicted the defendant’s testimony. However, the record also included evidence, including testimony from Martinez-Mendoza, that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant and drawing all reasonable permissible inferences in his favor, indicated the propriety of charging the justification defense requested by the defendant. Indeed, a justification defense was found to be appropriate in cases where part of a defendant’s testimony was inconsistent with a justification defense … , where a defendant’s testimony was in conflict with that of other witnesses … , and even where there was “strong” evidence to negate a defendant’s testimony relating to justification … .

Furthermore, we disagree with the conclusion drawn by our dissenting colleague that the defendant could not have reasonably believed that there was no ability to safely retreat, as demonstrated by the fact that the defendant, along with his female companions, were able to get to the car without incident a few minutes earlier. The use of lethal defensive force is limited to circumstances when the defender cannot “with complete personal safety, to oneself and others,” “avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating” … . However, the duty to retreat does not arise until the defendant forms a reasonable belief that another person “is using or about to use deadly physical force” … . More specifically, the other person’s deadly force must be actually occurring or imminent before the duty to retreat arises … . Here, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, might lead a jury to decide that it was not until the point in time that the defendant returned to his companions with the gun that the threat of deadly physical force was imminent. Thus, the justification defense remained available to this defendant, even though it may have been more prudent for his own safety for him to leave the area of [the bar] when he first went to the car to retrieve the gun … . People v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 01718. 2nd Dept 3-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER-ASSAULT CASE, DEFENDANT, WHO PROVIDED THE GUN TO THE SHOOTER, WAS DEEMED TO SHARE THE SHOOTER’S INTENT)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER-ASSAULT CASE, DEFENDANT, WHO PROVIDED THE GUN TO THE SHOOTER, WAS DEEMED TO SHARE THE SHOOTER’S INTENT)/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER-ASSAULT CASE, DEFENDANT, WHO PROVIDED THE GUN TO THE SHOOTER, WAS DEEMED TO SHARE THE SHOOTER’S INTENT)/ACCOMPLICE (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER-ASSAULT CASE, DEFENDANT, WHO PROVIDED THE GUN TO THE SHOOTER, WAS DEEMED TO SHARE THE SHOOTER’S INTENT)

,

REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge should have instructed the jury on res ipsa loquitur and Multiple Dwelling Law 78 in this elevator accident case. Plaintiff alleged the elevator door closed on her causing her to fall to the floor. There was evidence the door had malfunctioned the day before and a building representative was made aware of the malfunction. There was evidence the door would not have struck plaintiff absent a malfunction, and there was a log of incidents with the elevator which was erroneously excluded from evidence:

Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine which “permits the inference of negligence to be drawn from the circumstances of the occurrence” when a plaintiff can establish that (1) the event is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the event was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant; and (3) the event was not caused by the plaintiff’s actions … . “To rely on res ipsa loquitur a plaintiff need not conclusively eliminate the possibility of all other causes of the injury. It is enough that the evidence supporting the three conditions afford a rational basis for concluding that it is more likely than not’ that the injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence” … .

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has frequently been applied in cases involving elevator malfunctions, including those involving doors which unexpectedly closed upon and injured plaintiffs while attempting to enter and exit an elevator … . * * *

The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury regarding the owner’s nondelegable duty under Multiple Dwelling Law § 78. A building owner’s duty under the statute extends to elevator maintenance and repair … . The court’s refusal to charge section 78 erroneously led the jury to believe that the owner’s negligence could only be predicated on its actual or constructive notice of an elevator problem. Barkley v Plaza Realty Invs. Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01664, 1st Dept 3-7-17

NEGLIGENCE (ELEVATORS, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)/EVIDENCE (RES IPSA LOQUITUR, MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, (ELEVATORS, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)/ELEVATORS (REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (ELEVATORS, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)/MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW (ELEVATORS, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW LIABILITY IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE)

,

ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE.

The Third Department determined that, although none of the three children testified in this child neglect case, the children’s statements about the domestic violence witnessed by them were admissible because the statements were cross-corroborated:

“While the mere repetition of an accusation by a child is insufficient to corroborate the child’s prior account of abuse or neglect” … , “independent statements by children requiring corroboration may corroborate each other” … . * * *

… [W]e find that, although none of the children testified, their out-of-court statements sufficiently cross-corroborated one another … . Matter of Annarae I. (Jennifer K.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01605, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE)/HEARSAY (ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE)

, ,

A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, reversing County Court, determined a conviction by guilty plea can be challenged on actual innocence grounds. The defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to set aside her conviction both on her actual innocence claim and her ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Defendant was a nurse who bathed a profoundly disabled child. After the bath blisters appeared on the child’s skin. At the time she stated she didn’t think the water was hot. In her motion to set aside, she alleged that she was convinced during interrogation that the water must have been too hot and pled guilty for that reason. Expert evidence indicates the blisters may not have been burns, but rather were a reaction to antibiotics. A biopsy was consistent with an allergic reaction:

Having determined that a defendant’s plea of guilty does not absolutely bar that defendant from maintaining a freestanding actual innocence claim pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h), we address whether the County Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the judgment based on actual innocence. Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant is entitled to a hearing on her actual innocence claim. “A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration”‘ by the court” … . Here, by submitting her affidavit, [defendant’s expert’s] affirmation, and other material, such as the skin biopsy pathology report, the defendant made the requisite prima facie showing … . We also note that subsequent to the entry of the defendant’s plea of guilty, the civil action against the defendant and her former employer resulted in a jury verdict in their favor. We are mindful that the burden of proof in a civil trial is different than that in a criminal trial and that the evidence presented at each may differ. However, in the civil trial, the jury found that the defendant’s care was not a proximate cause of the child’s injuries, despite the fact that the defendant and her former employer were collaterally estopped from contesting liability. People v Tiger, 2017 NY Slip Op 01575, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO SET ASIDE CONVICTION, A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/SET ASIDE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)/ACTUAL INNOCENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, A CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA MAY BE SET ASIDE ON ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM AND ON HER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)

,

EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to demonstrate defendant’s knowledge he possessed cocaine. The defendant received a package containing cocaine addressed to a name (not his name) he used to sign for it and the package was addressed to a location which was not where defendant resided. The defendant was arrested before the package was opened:

“Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted—and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence—would warrant conviction” … . ” Legally sufficient evidence’ means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof” … . ” In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt'” … . “The reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts, supply proof of every element of the charged crimes, and whether the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference. That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference” … . People v Jimenez, 2017 NY Slip Op 01566, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW(EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/GRAND JURIES (EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, POSSESSION OF (EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)

,

UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress his statements should have been granted:

At the suppression hearing, a police detective testified that while the defendant was in custody, he administered Miranda warnings … and took the defendant’s written statement. On cross-examination, the detective admitted that 10 minutes prior to taking the defendant’s Mirandized written statement, he questioned the defendant without administering Miranda warnings. The written statement itself refers to incriminating statements made by the defendant during the earlier, pre-Miranda questioning. The Supreme Court denied suppression.

“[W]here an improper, unwarned statement gives rise to a subsequent Mirandized statement as part of a single continuous chain of events,’ there is inadequate assurance that the Miranda warnings were effective in protecting a defendant’s rights, and the warned statement must also be suppressed” … . Here, the improper unwarned statements made by the defendant gave rise to a subsequent Mirandized written statement as part of a single continuous chain of events. Accordingly, both the oral statement and the written statement should have been suppressed. People v Ghee, 2017 NY Slip Op 01564, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENTS, UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this psychiatric malpractice case should not have been granted. Plaintiffs’ expert found fault in, inter alia, defendants’ failure to document suicide assessments. Plaintiffs’ decedent committed suicide shortly after the defendant psychiatrists, Roberts and Decker, saw her:

Plaintiffs submitted the factually specific affidavit of a psychiatrist who, relying upon the foregoing, opined that Roberts deviated from the minimum standard of care in failing to document a proper suicide risk assessment and then discharging decedent without ensuring that she obtain psychotherapy and medication management within two days … . * * *

Plaintiffs’ expert psychiatrist opined that Decker fell short of the minimum standard of care by failing to properly conduct and document a suicide risk assessment of decedent, who was experiencing triggering anxiety and untreated depression. The psychiatrist further opined that Decker departed from the minimum standard of care in placing medication adjustment and psychotherapy on hold in the expectation that a “severely compromised” person would provide more information on an inpatient treatment facility that she was curious about. Tkacheff v Roberts, 2017 NY Slip Op 01429, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/PSYCHIATRISTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)/SUICIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRISTS SAW HER, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEVIATED FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE)

, ,

DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED; PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge erred when the full circumstantial evidence jury instruction was not given. There was no direct evidence identifying defendant as the robber of the victim, who was sitting in his car at the time he was robbed. Blood matched to the defendant by DNA evidence was found on the handle of the door of the victim’s car. The Third Department also noted that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of acceptable commentary during summation when he told the jury the blood on the victim’s car belonged to the robber:

Contrary to the People’s assertion, this was not a case “where both direct and circumstantial evidence [were] employed to demonstrate . . . defendant’s culpability[,] thereby negating the need for the [requested] charge” … . While there indeed is no question — based upon the victim’s testimony and the photographic evidence contained in the record — that the charged crimes did in fact occur, the record makes clear — and the People readily concede — that there was no direct evidence identifying defendant as the perpetrator. In this regard, while the People are correct that a DNA match “can provide strong evidence of a person’s presence at and participation in a criminal act” … , a defendant’s mere presence at the scene of the crime in close temporal proximity to its commission does not establish his or her identity as the perpetrator … . Simply put, where there is no direct evidence linking the defendant to the charged crimes, courts consistently have required that a circumstantial evidence charge be given … . As the People’s proof relative to the identity of the perpetrator here was entirely circumstantial, Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s request to charge the jury accordingly; moreover, as the proof against defendant was less than overwhelming, we cannot deem the court’s failure to grant the requested charge to be harmless error … . People v James, 2017 NY Slip Op 01409, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, (DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, (DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)/CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER)

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