You are here: / Evidence
,

Defendant Was Convicted of Bribing Three Witnesses to Recant their Statements Identifying Defendant’s Brother as the Shooter in a Killing;

Evidence of the Murder of Another Witness Who Identified Defendant’s Brother as the Shooter, Evidence which Was Not Linked by Trial Evidence to the Defendant But which Was Likely to Raise Suspicion About the Defendant’s Involvement, Was Allowed in Defendant’s Bribery Trial to Explain the Subsequent Actions of the Three Witnesses Defendant Was Accused of Bribing

The Second Department, over a substantial dissent, determined defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the introduction of evidence of a murder which was not tied to the defendant, but which may have raised serious questions about the defendant’s involvement in the minds of the jurors.  The defendant was accused of bribing three witnesses who had identified defendant’s brother as the shooter in a killing which  took place in a park. That shooting was witnessed by three teen-aged girls and a man named Gibson. The defendant met with all three girls and paid them money.  They all recanted their statements about defendant’s brother’s involvement in the park shooting. On the day before defendant’s brother’s trial, Gibson was shot and killed.  A man confessed to that shooting and the defendant was never linked to the Gibson killing. Evidence of the Gibson killing was allowed in evidence to demonstrate the state of mind of the three teen-aged girls who, after learning of Gibson’s killing, recanted their recantations and stood by their original statements identifying the defendant’s brother as the park shooter.  The court determined the evidence of the Gibson killing was not Molineux evidence because the jury was never told of any link between the Gibson killing and the defendant.  Therefore, the court reasoned, the Gibson killing was not a prior uncharged crime or bad act done by the defendant.  The court, however, seemed to use the analysis required under Molineux and found that the evidence of the Gibson killing was admissible to explain the girls’ actions and to explain why they and their families were relocated after the Gibson killing:

Evidence of uncharged crimes is generally excluded under the Molineux rule (People v Molineux, 168 NY 264) for policy reasons, because such evidence may induce the jury to base a finding of guilt on collateral matters, or to convict a defendant because of his or her past criminal history … . Nevertheless, evidence of prior uncharged crimes may be received if it is relevant to some issue other than the defendant’s criminal disposition … . The purposes for which uncharged crime evidence may properly be admitted include completing the narrative of the events charged in the indictment and providing necessary background information … . “Where there is a proper nonpropensity purpose, the decision whether to admit evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts rests upon the trial court’s discretionary balancing of probative value and unfair prejudice” … .

However, “[t]he Molineux rule was created to address a particular prejudice inherent to a particular type of proof: evidence of a defendant’s prior crimes and bad acts” … . That type of prejudice is not present in this case, because evidence that Gibson was murdered two days before he was scheduled to testify against Sykes did not constitute proof that the defendant committed an uncharged crime or bad act. * * *

Even if the evidence of Gibson’s death could arguably be viewed as suggesting that the defendant committed an uncharged crime, it was properly admitted to explain why the girls, having recanted their original statements identifying [defendant’s brother] as [the park] killer, admitted to the police that they had made false recantations, and adhered to their original statements. Indeed, two of the girls testified that Gibson’s murder, two days before the presentation of evidence in the [defendant’s brother’s] trial was to begin, frightened them. The impact of Gibson’s murder on the state of mind of these witnesses was interwoven with the narrative of the charged crimes, and necessary to help the jury understand the case in context, because it explained the girls’ conduct in coming forward to disavow the recorded statements … .   People v Harris, 2014 NY Slip Op 03532, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

,

Family Court Should Not Have Denied Father’s Request for Son’s Mental Health Records Without an In Camera Review

The First Department determined Family Court should not have denied father’s request for his son’s mental health records without first conducting and in camera review of the records and applying a balancing test required by Family Court Act section 1038 (d). There was no evidence of the alleged abuse except the child’s testimony, so the child’s credibility was the central issue:

Respondent father moved to subpoena the eldest child’s (the child) mental health treatment records. The Family Court, without conducting an in camera review of the requested records, denied the motion. Pursuant to Family Court Act (FCA) § 1038(d), the court must conduct a balancing test … . The statute requires that the court weigh “the need of the [moving] party for the discovery to assist in the preparation of the case” against “any potential harm to the child [arising] from the discovery.” Here, the Family Court should have reviewed the child’s mental health records in camera to determine if the records are relevant to the central issue of the child’s credibility before making its disclosure ruling.

The record contains no physical evidence of the alleged abuse and the case against respondent relies almost entirely on the credibility of the child, placing a great amount of weight on the child’s testimony… . Matter of Dean T Jr (Dean T Sr), 2014 NY Slip Op 03430, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

,

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing On the Ground It Was Untimely/The Motion Raised Legal Grounds for Relief (Evidence Withheld at Trial) and There Is No Time Limit for a Motion to Vacate a Conviction Pursuant to CPL 440.10

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without a hearing on the ground it was untimely.  Defendant had raised substantive, supported claims that Brady and Rosario material had not been turned over to him at trial.  The Second Department noted there is no time limit for bringing a motion to vacate a conviction pursuant to Criminal Procedure law section 440.10:

…[T]he defendant’s moving papers allege a ground constituting legal basis for the motion, i.e., that “[i]mproper and prejudicial conduct not appearing in the record occurred during a trial resulting in the judgment which conduct, if it had appeared in the record, would have required a reversal of the judgment upon an appeal therefrom” (CPL 440.10[f]). The County Court erred in denying the motion on the ground that the defendant unduly delayed making the allegations of Brady and Rosario violations, as “[t]here is no time limit on the filing of CPL 440.10 motions” … . Further, the moving papers were sufficient to establish entitlement to a hearing … . People v Taylor, 2014 NY Slip Op 02964, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

,

Evidence of Gang Membership Properly Admitted to Show Motive for Assault

The Second Department determined evidence of defendant’s membership in a gang, including expert evidence, was properly admitted in light of defense counsel’s argument defendant had no motive to assault correction officers.  People v Murray, 2014 NY Slip Op 02957, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

,

Show-Up Identification Procedure Unduly Suggestive

Although deemed harmless error, the Second Department determined the show-up identification of the defendant was unduly suggestive.  The defendant had already been arrested when he was pulled to a standing position in front of the victim for identification (for the second time).  At that point there were no “exigent circumstances” to justify the procedure used:

While the defendant bears the ultimate burden of proving that a showup procedure is unduly suggestive and subject to suppression, “the People have the initial burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness in a pretrial identification procedure” … . “The People’s burden consists of two elements. First, the People must demonstrate that the showup was reasonable under the circumstances. Proof that the showup was conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime will generally satisfy this element of the People’s burden'” … . However, “[t]he People also have the burden of producing some evidence relating to the showup itself, in order to demonstrate that the procedure was not unduly suggestive” … .

The People established that the showup “was conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime” … . However, they failed to demonstrate that the procedure was not unduly suggestive. The fact that a defendant is handcuffed and in the presence of police officers, standing alone, does not render a showup unduly suggestive …, even where “the victim had been told that the police had a suspect in custody” … . Here, however, the complainant was given two opportunities to identify the same man as the perpetrator. The second time, police officers pulled the defendant into a standing position and escorted him to where the complainant was standing. At that juncture, the defendant was under arrest and Officer Fallace acknowledged that “[t]here was no rush at that point.” Therefore, there were no exigent circumstances justifying the procedures employed. The above-described circumstances, when “viewed cumulatively,” establish that “the showup identification was unduly suggestive” … . Further, there was no hearing or finding on the question of whether the complainant’s in-court identification had an independent source … . People v Ward, 2014 NY Slip Op 02809, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

,

Officer Had No Legitimate Reason for Initial Approach of Defendant’s Vehicle–Suppression Granted and Indictment Dismissed

The Second Departent reversed defendant’s conviction and dismissed the indictment, finding that the initial approach of defendant in his vehicle by Officer Ranolde was not justified:

In People v De Bour (40 NY2d 210), the Court of Appeals established a graduated four-level test for evaluating the propriety of police encounters when a police officer is acting in a law enforcement capacity … . The first level permits a police officer to request information from an individual, and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality …. The second level, known as the “common-law right of inquiry,” requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, and permits a somewhat greater intrusion … . The third level under DeBour permits a seizure, meaning that a police officer may forcibly stop and detain an individual. Such a seizure, however, is not permitted unless there is a “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime … . Finally, the fourth level under De Bour authorizes an arrest based on probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime … .

“Reasonable suspicion is the quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious [person] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand” …. “To justify such an intrusion, the police officer must indicate specific and articulable facts which, along with any logical deductions, reasonably prompted that intrusion” … . The defendant’s later conduct “cannot validate an encounter that was not justified at its inception” … .

Here, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence seized should have been granted, as Ranolde lacked an objective, credible reason for approaching the defendant’s car and shining his flashlight into the car … . At the hearing, Ranolde failed to articulate any reason for approaching the defendant’s car other than that the car was parked in the early morning in an area where cars usually were not parked, and that the defendant may have moved something from the dashboard and thrown it on the floor of his car. Neither reason was a sufficient basis for the officers to have approached the defendant’s vehicle and requested information … .In any event, Ranolde’s testimony did not support a finding that he had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime … . Indeed, there was nothing to indicate that the defendant had violated any Vehicle and Traffic Law provision … . Additionally, Ranolde admitted that, after he initiated his inquiry, he looked into the defendant’s car using a flashlight and noticed nothing illegal or out of the ordinary. The defendant’s removal of something from the dashboard and his wearing of gloves were innocuous, and not indicative of criminality … People v Laviscount, 2014 NY Slip Op 02798, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

,

Evidence of a Prior Crime Not Admissible to Prove Intent and Not Admissible As Part of a Common Scheme or Plan/Conviction Reversed

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a dissent, determined the admission of evidence of an uncharged crime to demonstrate defendant’s intent required reversal because (1) the proof was not ambiguous about defendant’s intent, and (2) the prior crime was not so similar to the charged crime that it proved the existence of a common scheme or plan.  Defendant was charged with theft of a ring from a man named Cushman.  Extensive proof that defendant had previously stolen jewelry from another person was allowed:

Where intent is at issue but cannot be readily inferred from the commission of the act itself, evidence of prior criminal acts may be used to establish it … . Where, however, proof of the act demonstrates that the defendant acted with the requisite state of mind, Molineux evidence should not be admitted … . Here, proof of defendant’s actions is sufficient to demonstrate that he acted with the requisite intent. Spraying someone in the face with mace, grabbing the person’s ring and running can only indicate an intent to steal the ring. If the jury believed Cushman’s testimony, then it would have to infer that defendant intended to steal the ring from him.   * * *

Nor was [the prior crime evidence] admissible under the common plan or scheme exception, which requires that “there exist[] a single inseparable plan encompassing both the charged and the uncharged crimes” … . “There must be such a concurrence of common features that the various acts are naturally to be explained as caused by a general plan of which they are the individual manifestations'” …. Indeed, the Court of Appeals noted that “courts have been particularly cautious in permitting proof of uncharged criminal acts to establish a common scheme or plan” … . Evidence that is merely indicative of a modus operandi is not sufficient. “[A] modus operandi alone is not a common scheme; it is only a repetitive pattern” … . What is generally required is evidence of “uncharged crimes committed in order to effect the primary crime for which the accused has been indicted” … . People v DeGerolamo, 2014 NY Slip Op 02698, 1st Dept 4-17-14

 

, ,

Defendant’s Statement that He Was Thinking About Talking to an Attorney, Coupled With the Officer’s Interpretation of that Statement as a Request for Counsel, Rendered Invalid Defendant’s Subsequent Agreement to Speak with the Officer without an Attorney Present

The Third Department determined that stopping the defendant, asking him questions, patting him down, and searching a nearby vehicle (in which a loaded firearm was found) were supported by what the officer was told by persons who had just flagged down the officer.  The officer (Van Allen) was told the defendant had threatened one of the persons who flagged him down with a weapon and the defendant had been driving the van that was subjected to the warrantless search.  Subsequently, the defendant told the officer “I am thinking of talking to an attorney,” after which the office stopped questioning him.  Later, when the defendant told the officer he wished to speak with him, and the officer asked if he was willing to answer questions without an attorney present, the defendant said “yes.”  The Third Department determined, in part because the officer interpreted defendant’s statement that he was thinking about talking to an attorney as a request for an attorney, the defendant’s subsequent statement should have been suppressed:

Phrases such as “I think” or “maybe” do not necessarily establish that a request for counsel is uncertain or equivocal … . The relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable police officer would have understood the statement in question as a request for an attorney … . Although this is an objective standard, the fact that an officer did, in fact, treat a defendant’s request as an assertion of the right to counsel is properly taken into account in assessing what a reasonable police officer would have believed … . Here, despite the allegedly sarcastic tone of defendant’s initial statement, VanAllen indicated that he understood it as a request for counsel by promptly ceasing his inquiries. Further, when VanAllen later twice asked whether he had requested counsel, defendant confirmed without any equivocation that he had. Under these circumstances, a reasonable police officer would have understood that defendant had asserted his right to counsel … . Accordingly, defendant’s alleged waiver was ineffective, and his statements following the initial request should have been suppressed. People v Jemmott, 2014 NY Slip Op 02630, 3rd Dept 4-17-14

 

, ,

Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Raised Question of Fact About Whether Anesthesiologist, Who Was Alone With the Unconscious Decedent at the Time of Death, Was Negligent

The Third Department noted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur raised a question of fact about whether an anesthesiologist (Waid) was negligent:

…[P]laintiff submitted a detailed expert affidavit … . The expert opined that Waid, through overinflation or improper insertion of the endotracheal tube, caused the hemorrhage that immediately led to decedent’s death. Although the exact source of bleeding was never identified, the expert explained possible ways that Waid may have caused the hemorrhage and stated that such bleeding does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, Waid had exclusive control over decedent’s body and the medical instrumentalities at the time, and decedent was unconscious so he could not have contributed to the situation. Therefore, questions of fact exist and plaintiff may rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to attempt to establish Waid’s negligence… .  Cole v Champlain Val Physicians’ Hosp Med Ctr, 2014 NY Slip Op 02654, 3rd Dept 4-17-14

 

,

Expert Opinion About Link Between Trauma and a Stroke Erroneously Precluded/Frye Hearing Erroneously Ordered/The Opinion Evidence Was Not Controversial and Was Sufficiently Supported by the Relevant Literature to Obviate the Need for a Frye Hearing

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, with a concurring and a dissenting opinion, found that the trial court erred in precluding plaintiff’s experts from testifying about a causal link between an automobile accident and a subsequent embolic stroke.  The First Department further concluded that the opinion testimony about the causal link was supported by enough relevant literature to obviate the need for the Frye hearing which was (erroneously) ordered by the trial court.  The First Department went on to criticize the defense’s submission of motions in limine on the eve of trial, which, when erroneously granted, led to the plaintiff’s inability to make a prima facie case.  With respect to the criteria for a Frye hearing, the court wrote:

We reject the trial court’s determination that a Frye hearing was necessary. In the first place, defendants’ moving papers failed to justify the need for a Frye hearing at all. The affidavit by defendants’ expert in support of the motion merely asserted that the expert had “conducted a search of the relevant medical literature” and had found no support for plaintiff’s theory that the trauma from a motor vehicle collision caused the embolic stroke. Notably, defendants’ expert did not even point to literature or studies disproving such a link. Therefore, when, in response, plaintiff’s expert provided proof that literature supporting the theory existed and had been published in reputable professional journals and cited or discussed in others, the basis for defendants’ claim was negated; no factual issue was presented. At that point, it was up to the jury to decide whether to accept the assertion that the physical impact experienced by plaintiff in this accident was a competent producing cause of the embolic stroke.

Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, the opinion of plaintiff’s expert that the impact of the collision was a competent producing cause of the dislodgement of a clot, resulting in his stroke, is not the type of novel theory of causation that necessitates a Frye hearing; it was merely an opinion explaining the physiological process that caused the stroke plaintiff suffered.

Even assuming that the assertion by defendants’ expert warranted an evidentiary hearing to assess the reliability of plaintiff’s expert’s causation claims, the evidence presented at the Frye hearing sufficiently established the reliability of those claims.

Frye hearings are used “to determine whether the experts’ deductions are based on principles that are sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance as reliable” … . The test is particularly useful for newly minted or experimental processes or newly posited psychological theories, in order to weed out baseless and unreliable theories; a Frye hearing “should be held only if the basis for the expert’s conclusion is novel” … . “[W]here the proposed expert testimony concerns a claim that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the actions taken by the defendants, the whole concept of the Frye analysis is of limited applicability” ….

As the [2nd] Department observed in Zito v Zabarsky (28 AD3d 42, 44…), “general acceptance does not necessarily mean that a majority of the scientists involved subscribe to the conclusion. Rather it means that those espousing the theory or opinion have followed generally accepted scientific principles and methodology in evaluating clinical data to reach their conclusions.” There is no need here for the consensus the dissent claims is necessary. Sadek v Wesley, 2014 NY Slip Op 02551, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

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