You are here: / Evidence
,

Formal Training Not Necessarily Required to Qualify an Expert

In affirming the conviction, the Second Department explained the discretionary criteria for qualifying an expert at trial, which does not necessarily depend upon formal training:

The qualification of a witness to testify as an expert is a matter that rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court’s determination should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a serious mistake, an error of law, or an improvident exercise of discretion … . “The competence of an expert in a particular subject may derive from long observation and real world experience, and is not dependent upon formal training or attainment of an academic degree in the subject” … . People v Dorvilier, 2014 NY Slip Op 07517, 2nd Dept, 11-5-14

 

,

Odor of Burnt Marijuana Provided Probable Cause to Search Defendant and Vehicle

The Third Department determined that, upon a valid traffic stop, the odor of burnt marijuana detected by officers Denise and Knoetgen provided probable cause for the search of the vehicle and its occupants:

As for the propriety of the … pat down and/or search of defendant, “it is well established that [t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants” … . Here, both Denise and Knoetgen testified that they smelled burnt marihuana emanating from defendant’s clothing and the vehicle in which he was riding. Even accepting that Denise’s experience in detecting this distinctive odor was not sufficiently developed at the suppression hearing, we are satisfied that Knoetgen, as a drug recognition expert and a K-9 drug detection officer, possessed the requisite training and experience to do so. Further, and as noted previously, Knoetgen testified that the driver of the vehicle admitted that he and defendant had smoked marihuana prior to being pulled over for the underlying traffic violation … . As the circumstances presented and the observations made by the troopers provided probable cause for Knoetgen’s pat down/search of defendant, we discern no basis upon which to suppress the drugs subsequently seized from defendant’s pant leg. People v Rasul, 2014 NY Slip Op 07378, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

,

Proof of Janitorial Schedule Demonstrated Absence of Constructive Notice of Liquid on Stairs

The First Department determined that proof of the maintenance schedule was sufficient to demonstrate defendant did not have constructive notice of a spill on a staircase:

Defendant … demonstrated that it lacked constructive notice of the liquid on the staircase through the affidavit of the caretaker assigned to the building on the day before the accident, who averred that she would have followed the weekend janitorial schedule, which required inspecting the building by 11:00 a.m. on the day before the accident and removal of anything found on the staircase, and that, pursuant to the schedule, she would inspect the staircase at around 8:00 a.m. the next morning … . Her statement concerning the janitorial schedule was corroborated by her supervisor’s testimony. Plaintiff testified that the wet condition was not present on the stairs the prior evening, when she returned home at 9 p.m. Such evidence established that the wet liquid was deposited on the stairs only after the caretaker left work and that the accident occurred before the caretaker came to work the next morning. This time frame, occurring out of regular work hours, would not have provided the caretaker with a sufficient period of time to discover and remedy the problem … . Defendant is not required to patrol the staircases 24 hours a day … . Pagan v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 07441, 1st Dept 10-30-14

 

,

Sole Eyewitness’ Testimony at Trial Indicating She Could Not Identify the Shooter (Because of the Passage of Time and the Effects of Alcoholism and Depression) Did Not Allow the Prosecutor to Impeach Her with Her Grand Jury Testimony and Prior Identification of the Shooter

In reversing defendant’s conviction, the Second Department explained that the prosecution should not have been allowed to impeach its own witness when the witness failed to identify the shooter in her trial testimony.  In addition, it was error to allow a detective to testify that the witness previously identified the defendant:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach the sole eyewitness with her grand jury testimony and photo array identification of the shooter. A party may impeach its own witness with prior inconsistent statements only when the testimony of that witness on a material issue tends to disprove the party’s position or affirmatively damages the party’s case (see CPL 60.35…). “Trial testimony that the witness has no knowledge of or cannot recall a particular event, whether truthful or not, does not affirmatively damage the People’s case” … . Here, the testimony of the eyewitness that she did not remember the face of the shooter and could not identify the shooter because of the passage of time between the shooting and the trial, and because of her struggles with alcohol and depression, did not tend to disprove or affirmatively damage the People’s case … . Accordingly, it was error to permit the prosecutor to impeach the testimony of the eyewitness with her grand jury testimony and photo array identification. People v Ayala, 2014 NY Slip Op 07362, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

,

“Preamble” to Miranda Warnings Used In Queens County Undermined the Effectiveness of the Miranda Warnings—Defendants’ Statements Should Have Been Suppressed

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined that the “preamble” to the Miranda warnings used by the police and the District Attorney's staff in Queens County undermined the effectiveness of the warnings to the extent that the defendants (Dunbar and Lloyd-Douglass)  were not adequately and effectively advised of their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination:

[The “preamble” was as follows:]

“If you have an alibi, give me as much information as you can, including the names of any people you were with.

“If your version of what happened is different from what we've been told, this is your opportunity to tell us your story.

“If there is something you need us to investigate about this case you have to tell us now so we can look into it.

“Even if you have already spoken to someone else you do not have to talk to us.

“This will be your only opportunity to speak with us before you go to court on these charges.” * * *

Before they were read their Miranda rights, Dunbar and Lloyd-Douglas were warned, for all intents and purposes, that remaining silent or invoking the right to counsel would come at a price —they would be giving up a valuable opportunity to speak with an assistant district attorney, to have their cases investigated or to assert alibi defenses. The statements to “give me as much information as you can,” that “this is your opportunity to tell us your story” and that you “have to tell us now” directly contradicted the later warning that they had the right to remain silent. By advising them that speaking would facilitate an investigation, the interrogators implied that these defendants' words would be used to help them, thus undoing the heart of the warning that anything they said could and would be used against them. And the statement that the prearraignment interrogation was their “only opportunity” to speak falsely suggested that requesting counsel would cause them to lose the chance to talk to an assistant district attorney.

In sum, the issue in these cases is not whether, under the totality of the circumstances, these defendants' waivers were valid, but rather whether or not they were ever “clearly informed” of their Miranda rights in the first place, as is constitutionally required. We agree with the Appellate Division that they were not: the preamble undercut the meaning of all four Miranda warnings, depriving Dunbar and Lloyd-Douglas of an effective explanation of their rights. People v Dunbar, 2014 NY Slip Op 07293, CtApp 10-28-14

 

, , ,

Civil Commitment of Two Sex Offenders Reversed—In One Case the Proof the Offender Had “Serious Difficulty In Controlling” His Sexual Conduct Within the Meaning of Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law Was Legally Insufficient—In the Other Case, Proof the Offender Suffered from Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPC) Alone Did Not Meet the Definition of “Mental Abnormality” in Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a partial dissent, reversed the civil commitment of two sex offenders, finding the proof required by Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law lacking. In the case of Kenneth T, the state claimed Kenneth suffered from “paraphilia not otherwise specified” (paraphilia NOS) and “antisocial personality disorder” (ASPD).  In the case of Donald DD, the state claimed Donald suffered from ASPD alone.  The Court of Appeals, with respect to Kenneth T, seriously questioned, but did not decide, whether the proof of paraphilia NOS and ASPD sufficiently demonstrated a “mental abnormality” under Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law.  The court suggested that a Frye hearing to test the scientific soundness of the opinion evidence in this regard would be a good idea. Sidestepping that issue on stare decisis grounds, the court reversed Kenneth's civil commitment because the proof Kenneth had “serious difficulty in controlling” his sexual conduct within the meaning of section 10.03 (i) was not clear and convincing.  With respect to Donald DD, the court unambiguously ruled that proof of ASPD alone is never sufficient proof of a mental abnormality within the meaning of section 10.03 (i):

We do not decide on this occasion from what sources sufficient evidence of a serious difficulty controlling sex-offending conduct may arise, but they cannot consist of such meager material as that a sex offender did not make efforts to avoid arrest and reincarceration. A detailed psychological portrait of a sex offender would doubtless allow an expert to determine the level of control the offender has over his sexual conduct. However, … testimony that Kenneth T. lacked “internal controls such as a conscience that might curb his impulses” is not a basis from which serious difficulty in controlling sexual conduct may be rationally inferred. * * *

Donald DD.'s appeal presents us with an opportunity to decide a question left open in Matter of State of New York v John S. (23 NY3d 326 [2014]), namely whether a civil commitment under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 may be based solely on a diagnosis of ASPD, together with evidence of sexual crimes … . We hold that it cannot. Matter of State of New York v Donald DD, 2014 NY Slip Op 07295, CtApp 10-28-14

 

,

“Drug Factory” Presumption re: Possession of Drugs to Which the Defendant Is In “Close Proximity” Does Not Apply to A Defendant Who Is Arrested Outside the Building Where the Drugs Are Located and Who Was Not Trying to Escape/Where a Jury Is Instructed It Can Consider Two Different Theories of Possession, and One of Those Theories Should Not Have Been Available for the Jury’s Consideration, the Relevant Convictions Must Be Reversed—the Jury Could Have Based Its Verdict on the Erroneously-Charged Theory

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the trial judge should not have allowed the jury to consider whether the defendant, who was arrested outside the apartment, was in “close proxity” to the cocaine in the apartment.  Penal Law 220.25(2) creates a presumption that persons in “close proximity” to drugs that are being mixed or packaged possesses those drugs (the so-called “drug factory” presumption). The trial judge also instructed the jury they could consider whether the defendant constructively possessed the drugs by virtue of his control over the area where the drugs were found.  Because it can not be determined whether the jury based its verdict on the erroneous “drug factory” charge or the correct “constructive possession” charge, the relevant convictions were reversed and a new trial ordered.  The Court of Appeals went through all the scenarios which have been held to constitute “close proximity” to drugs and concluded that where a defendant is outside the structure where the drugs are located and is not in the process of fleeing, the “drug factory” presumption does not apply:

…[T]he presumption may apply even in cases where a defendant has exited the premises, when the defendant is caught in immediate flight, or apprehended fleeing the premises “upon the sudden appearance of the police” … . We need not determine on this appeal how far from the premises defendant may be apprehended and still be subject to the presumption. We note, however, that the boundary in these cases is not limitless. Suffice it to say, that each incremental enlargement of the distance between the defendant and the premises where the drugs are found tests the underlying justification of the presumption, and makes it susceptible to challenge. …

Applying these principles to the record before us, we conclude that defendant was not in close proximity to the drugs when they were found within the meaning of section 220.25(2). He was not in the room where the drugs were found, in an adjacent room within the same apartment, or in a “closet, bathroom or other convenient recess[].” Nor was he found immediately outside the premises while trying to escape.  People v Kims, 2014 NY Slip Op 07196, CtApp 10-23-14

 

,

Prior Consistent Statements by the Complainant in a Sexual Abuse Case Were Not Admitted for the Truth of the Matter Asserted, But Rather Were Properly Admitted to Explain How the Investigative Process Began

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a concurrence disagreeing with majority's reasoning and a two-judge dissent, determined that prior consistent statements by the complainant in a sexual-abuse case were properly admitted.  The Court of Appeals concluded the statements did not constitute bolstering, were not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted, and were admissible to show how the investigative process into complainant's allegations began:

In the challenged testimony, complainant's half-brother and mother did not recite any details of the sexual abuse to which complainant later testified in court — indeed, they could not have done so because she supplied them with no information beyond a bare allegation. They did, however, describe complainant's appearance: according to her half-brother, complainant “hesitated” and, after telling him that she had performed oral sex, was reluctant to speak further; according to complainant's mother, when pushed by her half-brother to “tell mom what you just told me,” complainant stood mute with her fist in her mouth, causing her mother to think at first that she had injured her hand. Finally, the witnesses explained what actions complainant's disclosure prompted them to take: the half-brother pressed complainant to repeat the allegation to their mother, and, when she was unwilling, told their mother himself; complainant's mother immediately shared the allegation with a trusted sister of defendant's and a friend, which led to the investigation resulting in the charge against defendant.

New York courts have routinely recognized that “nonspecific testimony about [a] child-victim's reports of sexual abuse [do] not constitute improper bolstering [because] offered for the relevant, nonhearsay purpose of explaining the investigative process and completing the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest” … . Here, the objected-to testimony fulfilled these legitimate nonhearsay purposes.  People v Ludwig, 2014 NY Slip Op 07201, CtApp 10-23-14

The Court of Appeals addressed the same issue and came to the same result in another case. People v Cullen, 2014 NY Slip Op 07202, CtApp 10-23-14

 

,

Heroin Upon Which Defendant Overdosed in His Cell Constituted “Dangerous Contraband”—Conviction for Promoting Prison Contraband in the First Degree Was Not Against the Weight of the Evidence

The Third Department determined defendant’s conviction for promoting prison contraband in the first degree was supported by the evidence.  The contraband, heroin, was “dangerous” with the meaning of the statute because it endangered the safety of the defendant, who overdosed on the drug in his cell:

As noted by County Court, contraband will be considered dangerous under the statutory definition as long as it endangers the safety of “any person” (Penal Law § 205.00 [4]). Inasmuch as the heroin possessed by defendant clearly endangered his own safety, and he freely admitted that he used it to harm himself, there was legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that it constituted dangerous contraband and we do not find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence… . People v Verley, 2014 NY Slip Op 07208, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

, , ,

Where Jail Time Is Contemplated as Punishment for Disobeying an Order of Protection, the Standard of Proof for Willful Contempt is “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lahtinen, determined that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied in a contempt proceeding where jail time was imposed as a punishment for disobeying an order of protection.  The court held the proof met the standard, but sentenced the respondent to time-served (11 days):

Case law has not been consistent regarding the level of proof when considering an alleged willful violation of a protective order … . This inconsistency may be due in part to the statutory silence as to the quantum of proof (see Family Ct Act § 846-a [stating that the court must be satisfied by “competent proof”]), as well as the fact that, like other statutes implicating contempt, a Family Ct Act article 8 proceeding can involve civil contempt, criminal contempt or both. Criminal and civil contempt have different levels of proof as “criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” whereas “civil contempt . . . must be proven by clear and convincing evidence” … .

Where, as here, a person who has violated an order of protection is incarcerated as a punitive remedy for a definite period — with no avenue to shorten the term by acts that extinguish the contempt — then that aspect of the Family Ct Act article 8 proceeding “is one involving criminal contempt [and] [t]he standard of proof that must be met to establish that the individual willfully violated the court’s order is beyond a reasonable doubt” … . Matter of Stuart LL v Aimee KL, 2014 NY Slip Op 07222, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

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