You are here: / Evidence
,

CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION CLARIFIED; EXCLUDING THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE HERE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

The Court of Appeals, over a three-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion (as a matter of law) when it denied defendant’s motion to present expert evidence about eyewitness identification. The Court of Appeals clarified how its precedent on the topic should be applied:

The decision to admit or exclude expert testimony concerning factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness identifications rests within the sound discretion of the trial court … . When the motion is considered during the People’s case-in-chief, the trial court performs this function by weighing the request to introduce such testimony “against other relevant factors, such as the centrality of the identification issue and the existence of corroborating evidence” (… see … People v LeGrand, 8 NY3d 449, 459 [2007]). To the extent LeGrand has been understood to require courts to apply a strict two-part test that initially evaluates the strength of the corroborating evidence, it should instead be read as enumerating factors for trial courts to consider in determining whether expert testimony on eyewitness identification “‘would aid a lay jury in reaching a verdict'” … . Courts reviewing such a determination simply examine whether the trial court abused its discretion in applying the “standard balancing test or prejudice versus probative value” … .

Here, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law when it precluded the introduction of the expert testimony. The trial court was entitled to reject the expert testimony after balancing the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial or otherwise harmful effects. In light of the fact that “trial courts generally have the power to limit the amount and scope of evidence presented,” … on this record, the Appellate Division erred in holding that Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law in precluding the testimony. People v McCullough, 2016 NY Slip Op 05060, CtApp 6-28-16

CRIMINAL LAW (CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION CLARIFIED; EXCLUDING THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE HERE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION CLARIFIED; EXCLUDING THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE HERE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION CLARIFIED; EXCLUDING THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE HERE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)/EXPERT EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION CLARIFIED; EXCLUDING THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE HERE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)

,

GUNPOINT DETENTION NOT JUSTIFIED, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Fourth Department determined the gunpoint detention of defendant was not justified by what the officer knew or observed. The motion to suppress the seized marijuana and handgun should have been granted:

The People concede that the sergeant’s encounter with defendant constituted a level three forcible detention under People v De Bour …, and thus required “a reasonable suspicion that [defendant] was involved in a felony or misdemeanor” … . “[A]ctions that are at all times innocuous and readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation . . . may not generate a founded suspicion of criminality” … .

We agree with defendant that the arresting sergeant lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion. There is no evidence in the record that the sergeant was informed of the recovery of marihuana in the area the day before defendant’s arrest, and defendant’s actions in merely “grabbing” at his waistline and bending down to the floor of the vehicle, without more, were insufficient to provide the sergeant with the requisite suspicion that defendant committed a crime, and to justify defendant’s gunpoint detention … . People v Elliott, 2016 NY Slip Op 04838, 4th Dept 6-17-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GUNPOINT DETENTION NOT JUSTIFIED, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, GUNPOINT DETENTION NOT JUSTIFIED, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, GUNPOINT DETENTION NOT JUSTIFIED, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

,

NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A STRIP SEARCH, EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Fourth Department determined there were insufficient grounds for a strip search and defendant’s motion to suppress the drugs seized from his person should have been granted:

… [T]he search performed by the officer constituted a strip search … , which must be justified by “a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing evidence underneath clothing” … . We conclude that the officer did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion. Defendant was fully cooperative with the officer, admitting his possession of marihuana and denying possession of any other contraband. There was no indication that defendant might be concealing any contraband under his clothing, and the mere fact that he possessed marihuana does not justify a strip search. Although the People assert that the search was justified because defendant appeared to be nervous about being searched, the record reflects that defendant became nervous only after the officer began to perform the strip search … . People v Tisdale, 2016 NY Slip Op 04842, 4th Dept 6-17-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A STRIP SEARCH, EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A STRIP SEARCH, EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/STRIP SEARCH (NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A STRIP SEARCH, EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A STRIP SEARCH, EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

, ,

STRIKING ANSWER TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE TAPES IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Fourth Department, over an extensive dissent, determined striking defendant's answer in this slip and fall case was too severe a sanction for failing to preserve evidence, i.e., surveillance tapes:

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that a sanction was warranted inasmuch as defendant “wilfully fail[ed] to disclose information” that the court had ordered to be preserved (CPLR 3126). Nevertheless, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in striking defendant's answer and affirmative defenses. It is well established that “a less drastic sanction than dismissal of the responsible party's pleading may be imposed where[, as here,] the loss does not deprive the nonresponsible party of the means of establishing his or her claim or defense” … . Indeed, we note that the record does not demonstrate that the plaintiff has been ” prejudicially bereft' ” of the means of prosecuting his action … . Thus, we conclude that an appropriate sanction is that an adverse inference charge be given at trial with respect to the unavailable surveillance footage … . Sarach v M&T Bank Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 04820, 4th Dept 6-17-16

NEGLIGENCE (STRIKING ANSWER TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE TAPES IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STRIKING ANSWER TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE TAPES IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/EVIDENCE (STRIKING ANSWER TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE TAPES IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL  (STRIKING ANSWER TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE TAPES IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SURVEILLANCE TAPES (SLIP AND FALL, STRIKING ANSWER TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE TAPES)

, ,

PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED POLICE REPORT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, REPORT CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY BY SUBMITTING IT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff created an issue of fact in this rear-end collision case by submitting a police report indicating defendant driver slid on snow and ice. The court noted plaintiff waived any objection to the admissibility of the report by submitting it in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment:

In support of the motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, a copy of the police accident report. The police accident report indicated that the defendant driver stated that snow and ice on the road caused him to hit the plaintiff's vehicle, which demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver had a nonnegligent explanation for his actions … . Since the plaintiff submitted the police report in support of his motion, he waived any objection to its admissibility … . Orcel v Haber, 2016 NY Slip Op 04700, 2nd Dept 6-15-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED POLICE REPORT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, REPORT CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY BY SUBMITTING IT)/EVIDENCE (POLICE REPORT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED POLICE REPORT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, REPORT CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY BY SUBMITTING IT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED POLICE REPORT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, REPORT CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY BY SUBMITTING IT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED POLICE REPORT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, REPORT CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY BY SUBMITTING IT)

,

EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the evidence was not sufficient to support defendant's conviction for permitting children to enter or remain in a place of drug activity (unlawfully dealing with a child). Defendant was an occasional guest in the apartment where mother and her children resided. The Court of Appeals held that the People did not demonstrate a relationship between defendant and the children or the apartment such that defendant could control whether children were allowed to enter or remain:

… [W]e hold that to establish that a defendant permitted a child to enter or remain in a particular place, premises, or establishment, under Penal Law § 260.20 (1), the People must show that defendant's relation to the child or to the place, premises or establishment was of such a kind that defendant had some ability to control the child, so as to permit the child to enter or remain in the place in question. Moreover, a mere ability to notify authorities does not constitute such ability to control, or the statute might apply to anyone who comes into contact with a child entering or remaining in one of the proscribed places. People v Berry, 2016 NY Slip Op 04656, CtApp 6-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND)/UNLAWFULLY DEALING WITH A CHILD (EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND)/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (UNLAWFULLY DEALING WITH A CHILD, EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND)

,

FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS TRIGGERED NEED FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION.

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction, over a concurrence, determined defendant was entitled to an adverser inference jury instruction based upon the failure to preserve surveillance videos:

We agree with defendant that the court erred in refusing to give an adverse inference charge based on the People's failure to preserve surveillance tapes … . Defendant used reasonable diligence in requesting those tapes, which captured “evidence that [was] reasonably likely to be of material importance” …, i.e., a video in the area where the crime occurred, from cameras operated by the City of Rochester Police Department.

We respectfully disagree with our concurring colleague that the State's duty to preserve surveillance videos is not triggered until a request has been made by the defendant. People v Butler, 2016 NY Slip Op 04512, 4th Dept 6-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS TRIGGERED NEED FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION)/EVIDENCE (FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS TRIGGERED NEED FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION)/ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS TRIGGERED NEED FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS TRIGGERED NEED FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION)

,

RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY.

The Fourth Department, remitting the case, determined a Rodriguez hearing was necessary to determine whether a witness’s single photo identification of the defendant was confirmatory:

We agree with defendant that, during the suppression hearing, the court erred in precluding defendant from cross-examining the police investigator on the issue whether “Witness #1” was sufficiently familiar with defendant in order to render the single photo identification of defendant by that witness “merely confirmatory” … . Although the court conducted a Wade hearing, which ordinarily eliminates the need for a Rodriguez hearing … , we conclude that the court’s error during the suppression hearing renders a Rodriguez hearing necessary in this case … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing to determine whether the identification by the subject witness was truly confirmatory in nature … and, if the court determines that the identification was not confirmatory, it must further determine whether the single photo identification procedure employed with the subject witness was unduly suggestive … . People v Hoffman, 2016 NY Slip Op 04508, 4th Dept 6-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY)

,

ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, HERE THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant's conviction in this 30-year-old domestic murder case, determined hearsay evidence of threats allegedly made by the defendant against the victim were improperly admitted for the truth of the matters asserted. While evidence of threats made to the victim may be admissible under Molineux, such evidence must be in admissible form:

Citing Molineux and other like cases, including People v Alvino (71 NY2d 233), the People argue that evidence of defendant's prior threats and physical abuse of the victim were highly relevant for various nonhearsay purposes, such as establishing background information, revealing the state of mind of the victim and defendant, and demonstrating his motive and intent to kill the victim. As defendant correctly points out, however, there is no Molineux exception to the rule against hearsay. It may be true that evidence that defendant beat and threatened to kill the victim is admissible under a Molineux theory, but such evidence must still be in admissible form. For instance, a witness could testify that he or she witnessed defendant assault the victim, or heard defendant threaten the victim. That is not hearsay. It is hearsay, however, for a witness to testify that someone else told him or her that defendant beat or threatened the victim. People v Meadow, 2016 NY Slip Op 04505, 4th Dept 6-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, HERE THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, HERE THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED)/PRIOR CRIMES AND BAD ACTS (ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, HERE THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED)/MOLINEUX EVIDENCE (ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, HERE THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED)

,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A WADE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY, AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTIVENESS, OF AN IDENTIFICATION.

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction, over a concurrence, determined defendant was entitled to a Wade hearing to determine the reliability, as opposed to the suggestiveness, of an identification:

Here, following the drug transaction, the undercover officer did not observe defendant again until the trial, which was approximately a year and a half after the transaction. That lapse of time is in stark contrast to the typical situation where an undercover officer identifies the arrestee at the police station contemporaneously with the drug transaction … .

While we recognize that a “Wade hearing” is often linked, nearly exclusively, with the concept of “suggestiveness,” we conclude that a defendant is entitled to CPL 710.30 (1) (b) notice and the opportunity to move to suppress identification testimony pursuant to CPL 710.60 in order to test the reliability of such testimony … . While “suggestiveness” may play an important role in the reliability analysis, it is not the exclusive criterion. The list of criteria involved in making a reliability determination may include, but is not limited to: the lapse of time between the criminal transaction and the arrest, the opportunity to observe the suspect during the transaction, the duration of the interaction, and the facts and circumstances of the interaction with the suspect. It is well settled that “the mere labelling of an identification as confirmatory' will not obviate the need for Wade hearings. Case-by-case analyses of the facts and circumstances in each case remains necessary” … . “Comprehensive analysis, not superficial categorization, ultimately governs” … . People v Reeves, 2016 NY Slip Op 04502, 4th Dept 6-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A WADE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY, AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTIVENESS, OF AN IDENTIFICATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A WADE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY, AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTIVENESS, OF AN IDENTIFICATION)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A WADE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY, AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTIVENESS, OF AN IDENTIFICATION)/WADE HEARING DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A WADE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY, AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTIVENESS, OF AN IDENTIFICATION)

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