You are here: / Evidence
,

Criteria for a Warrantless Blood Swab

In affirming defendant’s murder conviction, the Fourth Department noted that a swab of a blood stain on defendant’s body was properly taken without a warrant. The DNA in the swab matched the victim’s. The court explained the criteria for a warrantless swab:

Defendant agreed to give his clothing to the police and, when he removed his shirt, an officer noticed a reddish brown stain on defendant’s chest that appeared to be blood. When asked what it was, defendant responded that it was a bruise. The officer swabbed the area, which later tested positive for blood and matched the victim’s DNA. Where, as here, the police did not obtain a warrant for the seizure of the blood evidence, “the police had to satisfy two requirements in order to justify the action taken. First, the police had to have reasonable cause to believe the [blood stain] constituted evidence, or tended to demonstrate that an offense had been committed, or, that a particular person participated in the commission of an offense . . . Second, there had to have been an exigent circumstance of sufficient magnitude to justify immediate seizure without resort to a warrant” … . We agree with the court that the police had reasonable cause to believe that the blood stain on defendant’s chest constituted evidence, and that the seizure was appropriate because it could have been easily destroyed by defendant … . People v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 08540, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

,

Erroneous Admission of Evidence of Specific Prior Crimes and Bad Acts Required Reversal

The Fourth Department determined evidence of prior crimes and bad acts on the part of the defendant (which took place just prior to defendant’s arrest) were properly admitted to provide background information explaining the actions taken by the police. But other evidence of defendant’s prior crimes and bad acts should not have been admitted and the errors warranted a new trial:

… [A]lthough the court properly permitted the People to present evidence of the fact that he was on parole at the time of his arrest, the court erred in permitting the People to detail that he was on parole for a conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The specific crime of which defendant was convicted does not constitute necessary background information, and it does not fit within any other recognized exception to the Molineux rule, i.e., motive, intent, identity, absence of mistake, or common plan or scheme … .

… [T]he court erred in ruling that defense counsel [in cross-examining a police officer] opened the door to the admission of additional evidence of uncharged crimes and prior bad acts that the court had initially precluded by an earlier determination. * * *

…[D]efense counsel did not challenge on cross-examination the officer’s credibility on the issue whether such prior interactions with defendant took place, thereby permitting the officer to fully explain the nature of the interactions… . People v Dowdell, 2015 NY Slip Op 08567, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

,

Courts Have the Power to Exclude Evidence Admitted by Stipulation; Trial Judge’s Refusal to Exclude the Evidence, Under the Facts, Was Not an Abuse of Discretion

In a conspiracy prosecution arising from a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders, the Court of Appeals determined the trial judge properly refused to exclude documentary evidence, and testimony concerning the evidence, which, although inadmissible, was admitted by stipulation and was not objected to until the day after the testimony. The court noted that the trial judge, in the exercise of discretion, had the power to exclude the evidence, despite the stipulation.  But because the admitted evidence did not raise a constitutional (confrontation) issue, was not highly prejudicial, and was not the subject of a timely objection, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in this case:

Although courts are ordinarily bound to enforce party stipulations … , where a party has in the interests of judicial economy stipulated to the admission of voluminous materials and there are among them scattered items, both prejudicial and ordinarily inadmissible that may reasonably have escaped counsel’s attention, there is no rule preventing an exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the party, at least in part, from the stipulation, particularly where doing so would not significantly prejudice the other side. The trial court here did not take a contrary view in declining to redact the record as defendant requested. It ruled as it did not because it understood the parties’ stipulation categorically to preclude relief of the sort sought, but because significant unobjected-to testimony had already been received … . While the court might have exercised its discretion differently, its decision not to revisit the issue of the notation’s admissibility, cannot under the circumstances be characterized as an abuse of discretion, as would be necessary for it to qualify as a predicate for relief in this Court … . Although the stipulation was not irreversibly binding, it was at least presumptively enforceable and defendant offered no plausible excuse for failing earlier to seek an exception from its coverage. Assuming that the disputed notation might have reasonably escaped notice before trial — and that is at best questionable — it was prominently referenced in [the related] testimony, but even then elicited no contemporaneous protest.

This moreover was not a situation in which the receipt of an extrajudicial statement resulted in a denial of the constitutional right of confrontation. The notation was not testimonial hearsay … ; at worst its admission ran counter to evidentiary rules of nonconstitutional provenance and was, in light of other evidence in the case received without even belated objection, practically redundant. Indeed, a different exercise of discretion by the trial court to exclude the note and redact record references to it, would not have materially altered the evidentiary equation. People v Gary, 2015 NY Slip Op 08368, CtApp 11-18-15

 

,

Evidence of Prior Violent Act by Defendant Properly Admitted to Refute “Extreme Emotional Disturbance” Affirmative Defense

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, in a murder case, determined that evidence of a prior violent act committed by the defendant was properly admitted to rebut defendant’s “extreme emotional disturbance” defense. Defendant presented expert testimony alleging he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from a stabbing attack. The defendant argued that his reaction to seeing his friend attacked, intensified by the PTSD, was the reason he fired his gun at a group of people, killing one of them. The defense argued that, prior to the stabbing which triggered the PTSD, defendant was a non-violent person. The evidence of the pre-PTSD violent act by defendant was properly admitted to call into question the “PTSD” defense. A violent incident which occurred after the charged offense, however, should not have been admitted:

Where …. evidence of a defendant’s bad acts or uncharged crimes is “relevant to some material fact in the case, other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged, it is not to be excluded merely because it shows that the defendant had committed other crimes” … .

Evidence of uncharged criminal conduct or bad acts that are probative of a defendant’s state of mind may be admissible if the defendant “opens the door” to such evidence by putting in issue his state of mind at the time of the commission of the charged crime by, for example, raising an extreme emotional disturbance or insanity defense … . Nevertheless, such a defense opens the door to the People’s rebuttal evidence “only to the extent that [the proffered] evidence has a natural tendency to disprove [the defendant’s] specific claim” … . That is, evidence of uncharged crimes or bad acts is admissible to rebut an extreme emotional disturbance defense where the evidence has “some ‘logical relationship’ to, and a ‘direct bearing upon,’ the People’s effort to disprove” the defense, and the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect … .  Although the balancing of probative value against potential prejudice is a matter that lies within the trial court’s discretion …, “the threshold question of identifying a material issue to which the evidence is relevant poses a question of law” … .

… The crux of the defense was that defendant, a previously nonviolent person, was suffering from PTSD as a result of the 2005 stabbing incident and that his actions in firing into the group on the street were attributable to his PTSD. By raising this defense and presenting the testimony of [two witnesses] — both of whom testified regarding defendant’s personality and behavior before the 2005 stabbing as compared with his behavior after that event — defendant “necessarily put[] in issue some aspects of his character and personal history” … . The prosecutor’s inquiries pertaining to the 2002 incident were “directly relevant to the question of defendant’s reaction patterns” because it was an instance in which “defendant had resorted to violence in the face of relatively mild provocation” before the 2005 stabbing occurred … . This altercation “ha[d] a logical and natural tendency to disprove [defendant’s] specific claim” that he was an otherwise peaceful person who reacted with violence only because his PTSD was triggered by the circumstances in which the shooting took place … . In other words, it tended to refute the subjective element of defendant’s defense, i.e. that he actually acted under the influence of PTSD. Moreover, the court’s decision to allow this incident to be explored on cross-examination, rather than through the testimony of a rebuttal witness, was not improper under the facts presented here. People v Israel, 2015 NY Slip Op 08370, CtApp 11-18-15

 

 

,

Evidence of Constructive Possession of Contraband Insufficient, Convictions Reversed

The defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana and weapons found in a bedroom of an apartment in which defendant and several others were present. The Second Department determined there was insufficient evidence that defendant constructively possessed the contraband and reversed:

The element of constructive possession may be established, inter alia, where it is shown that the defendant exercised ” dominion or control'” over the property by exercising a sufficient level of control over the place where the contraband is found or over the person from whom the contraband is seized … . “Constructive possession may be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence with inferences drawn from the facts presented in the case” … . “Where . . . the prosecution relies wholly upon circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, the circumstances must be satisfactorily established and must be of such a character as, if true, to exclude to a moral certainty every other hypothesis except that of the accused’s guilt” … .

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People …, it was legally insufficient to establish the possession elements of the weapons possession and marijuana possession counts, as charged here. Although the defendant was present in the apartment when the search warrant was executed, “it is settled that one’s mere presence in an apartment or house where contraband is found does not constitute sufficient basis for a finding of constructive possession” … . There was no evidence specifically connecting the defendant to the bedroom where the contraband was found, or otherwise connecting the defendant to the contraband. Under these specific circumstances, the People failed to prove that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the contraband, and therefore failed to prove the possession element of the counts as charged … . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 08428. 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

,

Emergency Exception to Warrant Requirement Misapplied

The police officers chased defendant when defendant ran and an officer thought he saw a handle of a gun on defendant’s person. The officers entered defendant’s house and found drugs. The Second Department determined the drugs should have been suppressed because there was no emergency justifying the warrantless entry and search of the house:

Under the emergency exception, the police may make a warrantless entry into a protected area if (1) they have reasonable grounds to believe that there was an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property, (2) the search was not primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and (3) there was some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched … . … There was no evidence of any circumstances which would have provided a reasonable basis for the patrol officers to believe that there was an emergency at hand and an immediate need for police assistance for the protection of life or property inside the house … .

Furthermore, even where exigent circumstances justify the warrantless entry into a protected area, the scope and duration of the warrantless search must be limited by and reasonably related to the exigencies of the situation … . Here, the subject drugs were not discovered by the ESU officers during their protective sweep. Rather, they were discovered by the patrol officers, who conducted an evidentiary search after the ESU officers had secured the house and removed the defendant, who was the only occupant. At the time of the patrol officers’ search, any purported exigency had abated, the police were in complete control of the house, and there was no danger that the defendant, who was in custody, would dispose of or destroy the weapon. Accordingly, the police were required to obtain a warrant prior to conducting the evidentiary search … . Moreover, contrary to the suppression court’s findings, it is of no avail that the contraband was found in plain view, since the patrol officers’ warrantless entry was illegal … . People v Scott, 2015 NY Slip Op 08445, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

,

Statements Made by Defendant Indicating He Was On a First Name Basis with Police Officers and that He Had Been in Jail Should Not Have Been Admitted Because the Statements Were Not Relevant to a Material Issue in the Case, The Error Was Harmless However

Although the error was deemed harmless, the Second Department determined statements made by the defendant indicating he was on a first name basis with police officers and mentioning he had been in jail should not have been admitted in evidence:

Evidence of prior crimes or bad acts is not admissible to show a defendant’s predisposition to criminal conduct … . Such evidence, however, is admissible when it is relevant to a material issue in the case, and the probative value of the evidence outweighs the potential prejudice to the defendant … . We agree with the defendant that the County Court erred in allowing these statements to be admitted into evidence, as the prosecutor failed to establish that any of the comments were relevant to a material issue in the case … . People v McPhillips, 2015 NY Slip Op 08440, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

,

Defendant’s Statement Was Circumstantial Evidence of the Taking Element of Grand Larceny Because an Innocent Inference from the Statement Was Possible; Video Surveillance Was Direct Evidence of the Taking Element Despite Defendant’s “Innocent” Explanation of His Actions

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined video surveillance showing defendant first hiding and then rifling through the victim's purse was direct, not circumstantial, evidence of the taking element of grand larceny (despite the defendant's non-criminal explanation of his actions). The court also determined the defendant's statement “I don't have it, but I can get it” (made when asked about the purse) was circumstantial evidence of the taking element because an innocent explanation for having the purse could be inferred from the statement. Because both direct and circumstantial evidence of grand larceny was presented, the circumstantial-evidence jury instruction was not required:

It is well settled that a trial court must grant a defendant's request for a circumstantial evidence charge when the proof of the defendant's guilt rests solely on circumstantial evidence … . By contrast, where there is both direct and circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt, such a charge need not be given … .

We agree with defendant that his statement to the prosecution witness that he did not have the purse but could get it was not direct evidence of his guilt. A defendant's statement is direct evidence only “if it constitutes 'a relevant admission of guilt' ” … . * * *

Here, defendant's statement — that he did not have the purse but could get it — was not a direct admission of his guilt of larceny. Rather, defendant's statement was also consistent with an inference that although he did not steal the purse, he knew where the purse was located and thought he could obtain it. Inasmuch as his statement merely included inculpatory facts from which the jury may or may not have inferred guilt, his statement was circumstantial rather than direct evidence … .

We agree with the People, however, that the surveillance video constituted direct evidence of defendant's guilt of larceny. The “taking” element of larceny “is satisfied by a showing that the thief exercised dominion and control over the property for a period of time, however temporary, in a manner wholly inconsistent with the owner's continued rights” … . People v Hardy, 2015 NY Slip Op 08369, CtApp 11-18-15


,

People Were Not Required to Disclose (Prior to Trial) Confession Made by Defendant to Health Care Worker

The First Department noted the People were not required to disclose, prior to trial, a confession defendant made to a health care worker (because the health care worker was not connected to law enforcement):

… [M]idway through their case, the People introduced a previously undisclosed confession that defendant made to a health care worker at a hospital where he was being treated for a suicide attempt. This statement tended to corroborate a similar confession that defendant made to a detective shortly thereafter. It is undisputed that the People had no statutory duty to disclose this statement, because it was not made to anyone connected with law enforcement (see CPL 240.20[1][a]), and because no Rosario material was involved. Defendant nevertheless complains that his due process right to a fair trial was violated by the timing of the disclosure, because he would have formulated a different defense had he known the People intended to introduce a confession to a civilian witness. However, we find no evidence of deceit or trickery on the part of the People, and defendant’s claim of prejudice is unpersuasive. … [T]here was no misrepresentation that the undisclosed evidence did not exist, and the trial had not progressed to the point where defendant could not have adjusted his defense, or requested less drastic relief than a mistrial.

Defense counsel did not object to the health care worker’s testimony on the ground of physician-patient privilege, and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. People v Tayo, 2015 NY Slip Op 08353, 1st Dept 11-17-15

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether Real Estate Broker “Launched an Instrument of Harm” In an Apartment Being Shown to Plaintiff; Evidence of Custom Not Enough to Shift the Burden of Proof in Premises Liability Action

The First Department determined defendant real estate broker’s (Prudential/Leonhardt’s) motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case should not have been granted. As an apartment was being shown by the real estate broker, plaintiff tripped and fell when her foot became tangled in a drapery cord which was on the floor. The broker (Leonhardt) submitted evidence in support of the motion for summary judgment stating that she did not remember whether she opened the drapes on the day in question, and further stating that her habit was to hang the cord up when she did open the drapes. The court held the broker’s evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the broker did not “launch an instrument of harm,” i.e., cause the cord to be on the floor. Therefore, the contract between the broker and the owner of the apartment could have given rise to a duty of care owed by the broker to the plaintiff:

We thus turn to the … potential predicate for finding third-party tort liability, which rests on whether Prudential or Leonhardt launched an instrument of harm. Since they were the movants for summary judgment, Prudential and Leonhardt had the prima facie burden of demonstrating that there were no triable issues of fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue … . Leonhardt’s deposition testimony, and her affidavit in support of the motion, established that it was possible that she opened the drapes before the accident occurred, although she was not able to state with a reasonable degree of certainty that she did. If indeed she had opened the drapes, Leonhardt surmised, she would have wrapped the cord around the hook, because that is what she always did. However, evidence of a particular custom is insufficient to shift the burden in a premises liability case, because the defendant is required to proffer “specific evidence as to [her] activities on the day of the accident” … . Here, since Leonhardt had no specific recollection concerning the opening of the drapes on the day of the accident, she and Prudential were unable to eliminate the possibility that they were responsible for the hazardous placement of the cord on the floor. Accordingly, they failed to meet their prima facie burden, and the court should have denied their motion for summary judgment. Stimmel v Osherow, 2015 NY Slip Op 08340, 1st Dept 11-17-15

 

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