You are here: / Evidence
, ,

Error to Preclude Witness for Sexual Offender in Article 10 Proceeding

In a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding to determine whether Enrique D, a sexual offender, suffered from a mental abnormality justifying civil confinement, the Court of Appeals determined the judge erred in refusing to allow a former girlfriend, Naomi N, to testify about whether Enrique ever tried to offend against her and whether Enrique respected her “boundaries:”

In the circumstances of this case, Supreme Court abused its discretion by precluding Naomi N. from testifying.  Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (g) provides that a respondent in an article 10 proceeding “may, as a matter of right, testify in his or her own behalf, call and examine other witnesses, and produce other evidence in his or her behalf.”  This provision manifestly does not limit a respondent to expert witnesses.  The pertinent question is whether a witness — expert or lay — has material and relevant evidence to offer on the issues to be resolved.

Here, Naomi N.’s rejected testimony was relevant to the State expert’s diagnosis of paraphilia NOS — non-consent.  The jury was asked to decide whether Enrique D. suffered a condition, disease, or defect that predisposed him to commit sex offenses, and whether that condition caused him serious difficulty in controlling his sex offending conduct.  With respect to the first prong, Naomi N.’s testimony would have called into question whether Enrique D. exhibited a longstanding fixation on nonconsenting women; as to the second, her testimony was relevant to show whether he experienced difficulty controlling his sexual behavior.  Matter of State of New York v Enrique D, 168, CtApp 10-22-13

 

, ,

Failure to Call Treating Physician Allowed Negative Inference in Case Alleging Mother Incapable of Caring for Child by Reason of Mental Illness

The First Department determined Family Court properly found mother incapable of caring for her child by reason of mental illness and noted the court properly drew a negative inference from the mother’s failure to call her own treating physician to rebut the allegations in the petition and a suspended judgment is not available:

The evidence, including testimony from a court-appointed psychologist who examined respondent mother, provided clear and convincing evidence that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b[4][c], [6][a]…). The psychologist testified that respondent mother suffers from, inter alia, bipolar disorder, which interferes with her ability to care for the child, placing the child at risk of becoming neglected if she is returned to her mother’s care. Moreover, respondent mother’s testimony confirms that she lacks insight into the nature and extent of her mental illness … .

Contrary to respondent mother’s contention, the Family Court properly exercised its discretion by drawing a negative inference against her for failing to call her treating physician or other medical providers to rebut the allegations raised in the petition and by the testimony after she expressed an intention to call her providers … .

The Family Court did not err in denying respondent mother’s application for a suspended judgment. This dispositional alternative is not available after a fact-finding determination of mental illness (see SSL § 384-b [3] [g], [4] [c]…). Matter of Love Joy F, 2013 NY Slip Op 06792, 1st Dept 10-17-13

 

,

Parental Rights Termination Based Upon Mental Illness Reversed—Psychologist’s Report Included Inadmissible Hearsay

The Third Department reversed Family Court’s determination that mother’s parental rights should be terminated based upon her mental illness. The psychologist’s (Liotta’s) report, upon which Family Court based its ruling, should not have been admitted in evidence because it included inadmissible hearsay:

Pursuant to the professional reliability exception to the hearsay rule, an expert witness may rely on information that would otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay “if it is of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion or if it comes from a witness subject to full cross-examination on the trial” … .  While some of the individuals with whom Liotta spoke testified during the hearing and were thus subject to cross-examination, several others did not.  Liotta was not asked and offered no opinion as to whether the information he gleaned from the interviews with individuals who did not testify was professionally accepted as reliable in performing mental health evaluations.  Respondent objected on hearsay grounds to Liotta’s testimony about these interviews and to the admission of his report – which contained detailed accounts of each interview – but the court overruled these objections.  Moreover, when respondent’s counsel sought to ask about the effect of the collateral source interviews on his opinions, the court precluded him from doing so.  As a result, no proper foundation was laid for the admission of Liotta’s testimony or his report… . Matter of Dakota F …, 513066, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

,

Accomplice Testimony Corroboration Insufficient Under Law Read to Jury

Even though the evidence of corroboration of accomplice testimony was sufficient under People v Reome, 15 NY3d 188 [2010], the Court of Appeals held it was not sufficient under the stricter criteria of People v Hudson, 51 NY2d 233 [1980] which Reome overruled. Because the jury was read the Hudson criteria, that criteria applied and the evidence of corroboration was not sufficient to support conviction:

Under the Hudson standard, the corroborating evidence was insufficient.  The evidence that was “independent” of the accomplice testimony in the Hudson sense proved, at most, that defendant had driven a minivan that was the same color as a car that was used to commit some of the crimes charged.  This by itself did not tend “to connect the defendant with the commission” of the crimes (CPL 60.22 [1]).  People v Rodriguez, 169, CtApp 10-17-13

 

,

People Failed to Prove Seizure of Cocaine at Police Station Was Not the Fruit of the Illegal Arrest—Attenuation Not Demonstrated

The Third Department determined the People failed to prove that the cocaine seized from the defendant at the police station after his arrest was not the product of the earlier illegal arrest of the defendant (fruit of the poisonous tree).  At the Dunaway hearing, the People presented no witnesses concerning the seizure at the police station.  County Court’s finding that the “attenuation” doctrine supported the legitimacy of the seizure at the station was therefore not supported by the record:

Under well-established exclusionary rule principles, where police have engaged in unlawful activity – here, by arresting defendant without probable cause – evidence which is a result of the “exploitation of that illegality” is subject to suppression as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” unless one of the recognized exceptions to the exclusionary rule is applicable … .  The exception at issue here, as specifically decided by County Court thereby preserving the issue for appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2]…), is attenuation, that is, whether the production of the cocaine evidence during defendant’s illegal detention resulted from the exploitation of that illegality, directly or derivatively … .  The focus of the attenuation exception is “on the presence or absence of ‘free will’ or voluntariness regarding a defendant’s . . . acts which follow illegal police conduct; thus, the attenuation inquiry resolves whether the causal connection between the police misconduct and the later discovery of the challenged evidence is so far removed as to dissipate the taint” … .  “That determination requires consideration of the temporal proximity of the arrest and [acquisition of evidence] . . ., the presence of intervening circumstances and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct” … .

Given the complete lack of testimony at the Dunaway hearing regarding the post-illegal-arrest incident at the police station – including any intervening circumstances – in which cocaine evidence was reportedly seized from defendant’s person, we find that the People failed to satisfy their burden of proving the applicability of the attenuation exception.  That is, the People did not prove that the evidence was not acquired by exploiting the illegal arrest but, rather, came about by means “sufficiently distinguishable from [the illegality] to be purged of illegality” … . Thus, County Court’s finding of attenuation is not supported by the hearing record.   People v Small, 103485, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

,

Emergency Doctrine Applied—Statements Made to Police and Overheard by Police Not Suppressible

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of motions to suppress certain statements made by the defendant to the police and to a friend in the presence of the police under the emergency doctrine. [The concurring judge felt the emergency was over when defendant spoke to his friend and his prior request for counsel rendered those statements suppressible. The majority held that the conversation with the friend was not police interrogation because there was no police involvement and the conversation was not a ploy by the police to elicit information from the defendant.] When the police encountered the defendant his clothes had wet blood on them and blood was found in defendant’s vehicle. The emergency doctrine applied because the police were justified in questioning the defendant to determine if someone was injured and needed help:

As a general rule, a person who is in custody cannot be questioned without first receiving Miranda warnings or after the right to counsel attaches … .  There are exceptions to these principles, one of which is referred to as the “emergency doctrine” … . It recognizes that the Constitution “is not a barrier to a police officer seeking to help someone in immediate danger” …, thereby excusing or justifying otherwise impermissible police conduct that is an objectively reasonable response to an apparently exigent situation … .  We have explained that the exception is comprised of three elements: (1) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief must be grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search must not be primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched … .  People v Doll, 141, CtApp 10-17-13

 

,

Insufficient Evidence to Warrant Jury Charge on Intoxication Defense

The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s rape conviction finding that defendant presented insufficient evidence to warrant a jury charge on the intoxication defense:

Although intoxication is not a defense to a criminal offense, a defendant may offer evidence of intoxication whenever relevant to negate an element of the charged crime (see Penal Law § 15.25).  An intoxication charge should be issued when, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to defendant …, “there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to [an] element . . . on that basis” … .  In order to meet this “relatively low threshold,” defendant must present evidence “tending to corroborate his claim of intoxication, such as the number of drinks, the period of time between consumption and the event at issue, whether he consumed alcohol on an empty stomach, whether his drinks were high in alcoholic content, and the specific impact of the alcohol upon his behavior or mental state” … .

Here, the evidence was insufficient to allow a reasonable juror to harbor a doubt concerning the element of intent on the basis of intoxication.  Defendant’s bare assertions concerning his intoxication were, by themselves, insufficient … .  Nor did his statement to police and the victim’s testimony that she smelled alcohol on his breath corroborate defendant’s claim.  While he may, indeed, have consumed alcohol prior to the events leading up to the crimes alleged, the evidence established that defendant’s conduct was purposeful.  He cut a hole in a screen to gain entry, instructed the victim to be quiet, threw a blanket over her head, and stole her cell phone so she could not call the police.  Given this evidence, the court correctly ruled an intoxication charge was not warranted. People v Beaty, 148, CtApp 10-17-13

 

, ,

Sexual Offense Convictions Reversed as Against the Weight of the Evidence—Too Many Inconsistencies and Contradictions in Proof

The Second Department reversed defendant’s convictions on sexual offenses as against the weight of the evidence:

The testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses failed to provide a credible foundation for the defendant’s convictions due to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions. * * *

…[T]the prosecution’s witnesses testified that the defendant and the mother separated in 2002, and, at the time, the defendant had already moved out of the home where the abuse allegedly took place. Thus, many of the alleged incidents of abuse took place after the defendant had moved out of the home and no longer had a key to it. From 2003 to 2005, a restraining order that the mother obtained against the defendant was in effect, and the mother confirmed that, during one period of time in 2004, the defendant conducted all of his visits with the children outside of the home. The testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses was generally inconsistent as to whether, during the other visits, the defendant stayed alone with the children in the mother’s home, or whether the grandmother or the mother was always present. In any event, although the younger stepdaughter alleged that the defendant molested her twice per week between 2000 and 2004, the trial testimony clearly established that the defendant’s access to the children was often limited after he moved out of the mother’s home in 2002.  People v McMitchell, 2013 NY Slip Op 06713, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

, ,

Robbery Conviction Against Weight of Evidence—Hand In Pocket Not Evidence of Threat to Use Force

In reversing the defendant’s robbery conviction as against the weight of the evidence, the Second Department determined the fact that defendant’s hand was in his pocket did not support the “threat to use immediate physical force” element of the offense:

This Court has held that where an unarmed person “positions his hand in his pocket in a manner that is intended to convey to his victim the impression that he is holding a firearm,” that qualifies as displaying what appears to be a gun … . Since the defendant here admitted to knowingly entering the warehouse with the intent to commit a crime therein, the acquittal of burglary in the second degree could only be based upon the People’s failure to prove that the defendant displayed what appeared to be a firearm, or, in other words, upon the People’s failure to prove that the defendant positioned his hand in his pocket in a manner intended to convey to the complainants the impression that he was holding a gun.

The trial court’s factual finding that the defendant did not display what appeared to be a firearm is supported by the record. The trial court, however, failed to give that finding the proper weight with respect to the crime of robbery in the third degree … . If the People failed to prove that the defendant displayed what appeared to be a firearm by holding his hand in his pocket, then there was no basis on which the trial court could conclude that the defendant’s conduct of holding his hand in his pocket constituted a threat to use immediate physical force upon the complainants in order to overcome their resistance. Accordingly, the verdict of guilt with respect to robbery in the third degree was against the weight of the evidence, and we vacate that conviction and the sentence imposed thereon… .  People v Johnson, 2013 NY Slip Op 06709, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

,

Uncharged Crime Evidence (911 Call) Admissible to Explain Aggressive Actions of Police

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined it was not an abuse of discretion to allow in evidence a 911 call, which could have been interpreted to have implicated defendant in an uncharged robbery, to explain the aggressive actions of the police when they stopped and seized the defendant, who was convicted of a weapon-possession charge:

Determining whether the probity of such evidence exceeds the prejudice to the defendant “is a delicate business,” and as in almost every case involving Molineux or Molineux-type evidence, there is the risk “that uncharged crime testimony may improperly divert the jury from the case at hand or introduce more prejudice than evidentiary value” … .  Yet this case-specific, discretionary exercise remains within the sound province of the trial court …, which is in the best position to evaluate the evidence … .  Thus, the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence may not be disturbed simply because a contrary determination could have been made or would have been reasonable.  Rather, it must constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law … .

On this record, we cannot say that the admission of the 911 evidence was an abuse of discretion.  The trial court reasonably determined that, given the aggressive nature of the police confrontation with defendant and the attendant risk of improper speculation by the jury, the 911 evidence was necessary to provide background information explaining the police actions, and that its probative value outweighed the potential prejudice to defendant … .  Defendant claims that the 911 evidence had no probative value because he admitted to possessing the gun and agreed not to challenge the propriety of the police stop.  But the 911 evidence was probative of all of the police conduct in this case, not just the stop itself.  The police behaved aggressively after the stop and before they discovered the gun by singling out defendant, grabbing him, and forcing him up against their patrol car.  By specifying why the officers stopped defendant in the first instance, the 911 evidence allowed the jury to put this conduct in the proper context.

The evidence was also probative of the officers’ credibility, which was a central issue for the jury to resolve on the resisting arrest charge ….  The People had the burden of proving every element of the resisting arrest charge …, and meeting that burden depended largely on the jury’s evaluation of the officers’ testimony and, particularly, the weight the jury accorded it in relation to contrary testimony proffered by defendant … .  Although the officers admitted to grabbing defendant, pushing him against the car, and tackling him when he tried to escape, defendant testified that the officers hit him several times in the head and face, that he never tried to escape, and that the officers’ violent acts were essentially unprovoked.  There was also contrary testimony about how the officers recovered the gun, which direction defendant was walking when he was stopped, and whether he was alone or with two black men as described in the radio run.  The 911 evidence better enabled the jury to resolve these discrepancies and assess the credibility of the officers’ testimony.  Without a complete picture of the events preceding the encounter, the jury would have had little reason not to fault the officers for being overly aggressive and to discredit their testimony as untruthful.

Any potential for prejudice here was offset by the trial court’s four strong limiting instructions, which emphasized that the 911 evidence “was not to be considered proof of the uncharged crime” … .  People v Morris, 147, CtApp 10-15-13

 

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