You are here: / Evidence
,

Level One Request for Information Not Justified by “Drug-Prone” Area or Defendant’s “Flight”—Seized Handgun Should Have Been Suppressed

Over a dissent, the First Department determined the facts did not justify a level one stop of the defendant by the police inside a New York City Housing Authority building and, therefore, the motion to suppress the handgun found in defendant’s pocket should have been granted. The First Department explained that a defendant’s presence in a high-crime or drug-prone alone does not justify a police request for information:

The uniformed police officers entered the building to check on other officers stationed inside. As the officers made their way towards the lobby, they saw defendant descending the stairs. When defendant saw the officers, he froze, jerked back, began to retreat, then stopped and stood on the stairs. Based on defendant’s reaction, and given the drug-prone nature of the building, the officers “suspected [defendant of] trespassing,” and asked him to come down the stairs to “make sure if he lived in the building.”

Defendant initially told the officers that he lived there. However, when asked for identification, he began to stutter, and changed his story to say that he was visiting his girlfriend. Although defendant stated that he had his identification in his pocket, he began moving his hands “all over the place, especially around his chest area,” which the officers interpreted to be threatening and indicative of possession of a weapon. To “take control of the situation” before it could “get out of hand,” an officer grabbed defendant’s left arm and brought it behind defendant’s back, which caused defendant’s open jacket to open up further and reveal a silver pistol in the netted interior coat pocket. One officer removed the pistol from the pocket, and another handcuffed defendant. * * *

Presence in a high-crime or drug-prone location, without more, does not furnish an objective credible reason for the police to approach an individual and request information … . As we have observed, “[T]he reputation of a location, however notorious, does not provide a predicate for subversion of the Fourth Amendment” … .

Nor does an individual’s desire to avoid contact with police—even in a high-crime neighborhood–constitute an objective credible reason for making a level one inquiry… .  People v Johnson, 2013 NY Slip Op 05723, 1st Dept 8-27-13

 

, ,

Defendant Denied Constitutional Right to Present a Defense—Evidence Victim Identified Another as the Perpetrator Wrongly Excluded

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller reversing defendant’s conviction, the Second Department determined defendant had been deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense.  The primary problem identified by the Second Department (among many others not mentioned here but worth reading about) was the preclusion of evidence that the victim had repeatedly identified someone other than the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.  Two crucial pieces of such evidence, an entry in the victim’s diary and a statement made to a third party by the victim, were hearsay.  The court found that the People’s hearsay objection was waived because it wasn’t raised before the appeal. Concerning the failure to allow evidence of the victim’s identification of another as the perpetrator, the Second Department wrote:

“Before permitting evidence that another individual committed the crime for which a defendant is on trial, the court is required to determine if the evidence is relevant and probative of a fact at issue in the case, and further that it is not based upon suspicion or surmise” … . “Then, the court must balance the probative value of the evidence against the prejudicial effect to the People and may, in an exercise of its discretion, exclude relevant evidence that will cause undue prejudice, delay the trial, or confuse or mislead the jury” … . Although a trial court has “broad discretion to keep the proceedings within manageable limits and to curtail exploration of collateral matters” …, “the trial court’s discretion in this area is circumscribed by the defendant’s constitutional rights to present a defense and confront his accusers” … .

Here, the evidence that the victim identified Uppal as the perpetrator was exculpatory evidence that was directly relevant to the fundamental issue in this case—the identity of the attacker. Furthermore, such evidence of third-party culpability, coming from the victim of the crime herself, cannot be properly characterized as “rest[ing] on mere suspicion or surmise”… People v Thompson, 2013 NY Slip Op 05707, 2nd Dept 8-21-13

 

, , ,

Writ of Prohibition Granted to Prevent Trial Judge from Precluding Testimony of Complainant—Complainant Would Not Release His Psychiatric Records

The First Department granted a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial judge from precluding the testimony of the complainant in a robbery case. The judge had precluded the testimony after the complainant refused to sign a HIPAA form to release his psychiatric records.  The complainant had acknowledged that he received psychiatric treatment and that he had auditory and visual hallucinations which were controlled by medication.  The First Department wrote:

An article 78 proceeding seeking relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and is available to prevent a court from exceeding its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction … . “The writ does not lie as a means of seeking a collateral review of an error of law, no matter how egregious that error might be . . . but only where the very jurisdiction and power of the court are in issue” … . Here, the court had no authority to issue this preclusion order since the records were neither discoverable nor Brady material … . It is undisputed that the People did not have the complainant’s records and did not know where he had been treated … . The People had no affirmative duty to ascertain the extent of the complainant’s psychiatric history or obtain his records … . The People advised the defense of the information they had regarding the complainant’s diagnosis and also apprised the defense of the complainant’s statements regarding his hallucinations. Therefore, no claim can be made that the People concealed any information from the court or the defense.  Matter of Johnson v Sackett, 2013 NY Slip Op 05663, 1st Dept 8-20-13

 

,

In Sex-Offense Trial, Discovery of the Victim’s Psychiatric Records Properly Denied and Cross-Examination About Psychiatric History Properly Prohibited

In a sexual-offense case, the Fourth Department affirmed the trial court’s refusal to allow the defense access to the victim’s psychiatric records and the court’s preculsion of cross-examination of the victim about her psychiatric history:

Mental health records are discoverable “where a defendant can demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that the records contain ‘data relevant and material to the determination of guilt or innocence,’ a decision which will rest ‘largely on the exercise of a sound discretion by the trial court’ ”… ..  Here, the court reviewed the records in camera before ruling that defendant was not entitled to any portion of that victim’s mental health counseling records, and the court did not abuse its discretion in reaching that conclusion.

We reject defendant’s further contention that the court abused its discretion by precluding cross-examination of the same victim regarding her psychiatric history.  “A defendant has a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him through cross-examination.  With respect to the psychiatric condition of a witness, ‘the defense is entitled to show that the witness’s capacity to perceive and recall events was impaired by that condition’ ”… .  Here, defendant was permitted to question that victim about any medications that she was presently taking and whether those medications impaired her memory or affected her testimony.  However, defendant failed to show that her psychiatric history “would bear upon her credibility or otherwise be relevant”  … .  People v Tirado, 486, 4th Dept 8-15-13

 

,

Child Properly Found to Be a Vulnerable Witness and Properly Allowed to Testify Outside the Presence of the Defendant in a Sexual -Offense Trial

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hinds-Radix, the Second Department determined the seven-year-old witness (who was the alleged victim of sexual offenses by the defendant) was properly declared a vulnerable witness pursuant to CPL 65.20 and was properly allowed to testify outside the presence of the defendant over closed circuit television.

…[W]e find that the Supreme Court properly declared the child to be a vulnerable witness. Since the child was seven years old at the time of the trial, she was “particularly young” …. Further, the defendant occupied a position of authority, since he was the child’s great uncle by marriage, the child regarded him as a family member …, he was responsible for the care of the child at the time the crime occurred, and he had frequent contact with her …. Thus, two of the factors set forth in CPL 65.20(10) were established by clear and convincing evidence … . It is also clear from the record that the emotional trauma the child experienced when she attempted to testify in open court about the crime substantially impaired her ability to communicate with the jury. Under all of the circumstances, the Supreme Court’s determination that the child was a vulnerable witness is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record … .

Furthermore, the child was properly permitted to testify outside of the physical presence of the defendant. The Supreme Court’s observations of the child when she was questioned in the courtroom, and the hearing testimony of the social worker, provided clear and convincing evidence that the cause of the child’s severe emotional upset was the defendant’s presence in the room …. Accordingly, the record supports the requisite specific finding that placing the defendant and the child in the same room during the testimony of the child would contribute to the likelihood that the child would suffer “severe mental or emotional harm” (CPL 65.20[11]).  People v Beltran, 2013 NY Slip Op 05638, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

,

“Missing Witness Rule” Properly Applied in Bench-Trial Proceeding to Determine Whether Antipsychotic Medication Should Be Administered to Involuntarily Committed Patient Over Patient’s Objection—Treating Psychiatrist Not Called by Facility

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Angiolillo, the Second Department determined the “missing witness rule” was properly applied in a civil, bench-trial proceeding for permission to administer antipsychotic medication to an involuntarily committed patient over his objection. The psychiatric center which brought the proceeding did not call the treating psychiatrist as a witness and relied exclusively upon the testimony of a psychiatrist who had reviewed the records. The trial court determined the failure to call the treating psychiatrist gave rise to an inference adverse to the position of the psychiatric center and, under the facts which indicated there may have been disagreement with the reviewing psychiatrist’s findings, the dismissal of the psychiatric center’s petition was warranted.  In explaining the relevant procedures and the applicability of the “missing witness rule,” the Second Department wrote:

The procedures for administering treatment over the objection of an involuntarily committed patient are set forth in detailed regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 7.09(b) (see 14 NYCRR 501.1[a], 501.2[b]). A facility must follow stringent procedures prior to filing a petition seeking court authorization to administer the treatment (see 14 NYCRR 527.8[c][4]). The process requires a series of clinical evaluations of the patient, all of which must be completed within 24 hours (see 14 NYCRR 527.8[c][4][ii]).

First, the patient’s treating physician must determine that the treatment is in the patient’s best interests in light of all relevant circumstances, including the risks, benefits, and alternatives to treatment, and that the patient lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision concerning treatment. The treating physician must forward the evaluation and findings to the clinical director with a request for further review, and notify, in writing, the patient, Mental Hygiene Legal Services (hereinafter MHLS), and any other representative of the patient (see 14 NYCRR 527.8[c][4][ii][a]).

Second, the clinical director must appoint a physician to review the patient’s record, and personally examine the patient, to evaluate whether the proposed treatment is in the patient’s best interests and whether the patient has the capacity to make a reasoned decision concerning treatment. If the reviewing physician determines that treatment over objection is appropriate, the physician must personally inform the patient of that determination (see 14 NYCRR 527.8[c][4][ii][b][1]). Alternatively, if there is a substantial discrepancy between the opinions of the treating physician and the reviewing physician regarding the patient’s capacity or best interests, the clinical director may appoint a third physician to conduct an evaluation (see 14 NYCRR 527.8[c][4][ii][b][2]).

Finally, if, after completion of the evaluation by the reviewing physician (or physicians), the patient continues to object to the proposed treatment, the clinical director must make a determination on behalf of the facility. If the director finds that the patient lacks capacity, and that treatment over objection is in the patient’s best interests, the director may apply for court authorization to administer the treatment and so notify the patient, MHLS, and any other patient representative. However, if the director makes the opposite determination, the patient’s objections must be honored (see 14 NYCRR 527.8[c][4][ii][b][3]). * * *

“A party is entitled to a missing witness charge when the party establishes that an uncalled witness possessing information on a material issue would be expected to provide noncumulative testimony in favor of the opposing party and is under the control of and available to that party” … . Where one or more of these elements is absent, the movant is not entitled to the charge … .Moreover, the missing witness rule may be applied in a nonjury civil trial, where the trial court, as finder of fact, is permitted to draw a negative inference against a party failing to call a witness … .The missing witness rule is related to the broader principle that “[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify in a civil proceeding” … Matter of Adam K, 2013 NY Slip Op 05631, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

,

Erroneous Admission of Hearsay and Expert Testimony Re: ANSI Standards Required Reversal of Million Dollar Verdict in Slip and Fall Case

In reversing a million dollar verdict in a slip and fall case, the Second Department determined that a hearsay statement (“oh my God, someone else fell”) and expert testimony about the floor mats not complying with American National Standards Institute [ANSI] standards should not have been admitted:

…[T]he security guard’s statement did not qualify as a present sense impression or an excited utterance. The statement was not admissible as a present sense impression because it is clear that the statement was not made as the security guard perceived the happening of the accident, and there was no evidence that corroborated his statement… . Regarding the excited utterance exception, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate that “at the time of the statement the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by an external event sufficient to still [his] reflective faculties and had no opportunity for deliberation”… . Here, the plaintiff failed to meet that burden. Therefore, it was error to admit the hearsay testimony concerning the out-of-court statement of the security guard.

The Supreme Court also erred in allowing the plaintiff’s expert to testify, in effect, that the defendants’ conduct regarding the placement of mats was negligent because it allegedly did not comply with regulations promulgated by the American National Standards Institute (hereinafter ANSI). “[ANSI] standards do not constitute statutes, ordinances, or regulations”… . Although the court did not charge the jury regarding ANSI standards, by permitting such testimony, it allowed the jury to improperly speculate that the defendants’ conduct should be measured against a higher standard of care than is required under the common law… . Gonzalez v City of New York, 2013 NY slip Op 05614, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

,

DNA Evidence Which Excluded Defendant Was Not Enough to Warrant Vacation of Conviction, or Even a Hearing on the Motion to Vacate

Defendant was convicted of the rape of one victim and the murder of another during an incident in 1980.  Over a substantial dissent, the First Department determined that the recent DNA test results re: hairs found on the perpetrator’s hat and DNA found under the fingernails of the murder victim—results which ruled out the defendant—did not warrant vacation of defendant’s conviction pursuant to a CPL 440 motion, and did not warrant a hearing.  The First Department noted the strength of the identification evidence provided by the rape victim and the fact that only three of 18 hairs taken from the hat were tested by the defense.  The majority of the First Department wrote:

Defendant has not established that the newly discovered DNA evidence “is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to [him]” … * * *

In deciding a CPL 440.10 motion, a hearing to develop additional facts is not “invariably necessary”; rather, CPL 440.30 contemplates that a court will make an initial determination on the written submissions whether the motion can be decided without a hearing … . Here, we find that even if the reliability of the evidence is assumed, defendant still did not establish a legal basis for ordering a new trial. Accordingly, the factual disputes in this case were not material, and defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of a hearing.

The dissent wrote:

I respectfully dissent, because I believe the motion court should have granted defendant further DNA testing and held an evidentiary hearing before determining his motion under CPL 440.10.  People v Jones, 2013 NY Slip Op 05547, 1st Dept 8-6-13

 

 

, ,

DNA Reports Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation; Reports Admissible as Business Records

In finding DNA-profile reports generated by the City of New York’s Medical Examiner did not violate defendant’s right to confrontation, the Second Department wrote:

The reports contained no conclusions, interpretations, comparisons, or subjective analyses, and “consisted of merely machine-generated graphs” and raw data … . Accordingly, the reports were not “testimonial” in nature … .

Further, a foundation for the admission of these reports as business records was established through the testimony of an assistant director employed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York (see CPLR 4518[a]…), who also conducted the actual analysis and interpretation of the data contained in the reports at issue.  People v Fucito, 2013 NY Slip Op 05538, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

,

Depraved Indifference Murder of Child Count Should Not Have Been Dismissed Based On the Grand Jury Evidence In Spite of Difficulty of Proving the Count at Trial

The Third Department determined the trial court should not have dismissed the count of the indictment which charged defendant with depraved indifference murder of a child.  While acknowledging the prosecution may have difficulty proving the charge at trial, the court determined that a logical inference from the grand-jury proof was that the injuries defendant inflicted on the child were immediately and obviously very serious and defendant callously delayed getting help while minimizing his conduct and the seriousness of the injuries.  In explaining the general criteria for the sufficiency of grand jury evidence, the court wrote:

In reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment, courts view the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and determine only whether the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient … . “In the context of grand jury proceedings, ‘legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt’… .  “The reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes” … .  “[I]f the prosecutor has established a prima facie case, the evidence is legally sufficient even though its quality or weight may be so dubious as to preclude indictment or conviction pursuant to other requirements” … .  People v Waite, 105416, 3rd Dept 7-25-13

 

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