You are here: / Evidence
,

Defendant’s Statements Made in Pre-Trial Plea Negotiations Should Not Have Been Admitted at Trial

The Second Department determined the prosecutor should not have been allowed to introduce at trial statements made by the defendant in plea negotiations (the error was deemed harmless however):

The defendant and the People executed an agreement, whereby they agreed that the People could introduce those statements against the defendant at a trial, inter alia, “to rebut any evidence” offered by him or on his behalf. At the trial, the Supreme Court found that the defendant had triggered this provision of the agreement and permitted the People to introduce the subject statements.

Statements made during the course of plea negotiations can be used against a defendant only if the People specifically bargained for that…. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improperly found that the defendant’s trial attorney offered evidence and raised factual issues which triggered the agreement… .  People v Thompson, 2013 NY Slip Op 05473, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

,

Where There Are Sharp Factual Disputes, Forensic Evaluations Are Required for a Guardianship Determination

In a case with sharp factual disputes, the Second Department determined Family Court should not have decided the issue of guardianship without the aid of forensic evaluations:

The Family Court erred in deciding the issue of guardianship without the aid of forensic evaluations of Stephanie, Shanika, and Jada. Although forensic evaluations are not always necessary, such evaluations may be appropriate where there exist sharp factual disputes that affect the final… . Under the circumstances of this case, the record is inadequate to determine the best interests of the child, particularly as there was no expert assessment of the psychological impact of separating Jada from Shanika. In addition, given Stephanie’s allegations of alcohol abuse by Shanika, and Shanika’s allegations of alienation by Stephanie and Stephanie’s current partner, forensic evaluations of Stephanie, Shanika, and Jada are proper to aid in the resolution of these factual issues.  Matter of Shanika M v Stephanie G, 2013 NY Slip Op 05460, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

, ,

Dismissal of Complaint Was Too Severe a Sanction for Spoliation

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) sued a security company and others based upon a fire that apparently was started by a cigarette carelessly thrown into a wastebasket.  During discovery defendants requested the surveillance video.  Plaintiff had reviewed the video and apparently had deleted portions of it considered unnecessary.  Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3126 (spoliation of evidence) was granted and the complaint was dismissed.  The First Department determined dismissal of the complaint was too severe a penalty and ordered that plaintiff be precluded from using the video as evidence.  The court explained:

As a threshold issue, NYCHA unconvincingly argues that no sanction is appropriate because litigation was not pending when the video was edited. For a spoliation sanction to be applicable, there need only be the “reasonable anticipation of litigation” … . The day after the fire, [NYCHA] was already viewing and editing the video, identifying images he thought would be relevant to determine how the fire started. These actions indicate that NYCHA may have been contemplating litigation, or at least wanted to identify the culpable person, and therefore the records were destroyed with a “culpable state of mind” … . For the purposes of a spoliation sanction, “[a] culpable state of mind . . . includes ordinary negligence”… .

Although NYCHA should be sanctioned for the destruction of portions of the surveillance video, the dismissal of the complaint was too harsh a remedy. Dismissing an action is “usually not warranted unless the evidence is crucial and the spoliator’s conduct evinces some higher degree of culpability” … . It is a “drastic sanction” and should only be done when a party has destroyed key evidence… .

The record does not support defendants’ contention that dismissal is required because the unredacted video is key evidence without which they will be “substantially prejudiced”… . New York City Hous Auth v Pro Quest Sec, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05429, 1st Dept 7-23-13

 

,

Improper Admission of Evidence of Similar (Pending) Criminal Charge under Molineux Required Reversal

The Fourth Department determined a new trial was required where the trial court allowed the prosecution to present evidence (in its direct case) of a pending attempted robbery charge under Molineux to prove identity.  The defendant was on trial for allegedly robbing a hotel clerk in Cayuga County and the Molineux evidence involved the attempted robbery of a hotel clerk in Onondaga County.  The Molineux evidence included the testimony of five witnesses and a video of the attempted robbery.  The Fourth Department wrote:

“Before admitting evidence of other crimes to establish identity, the Trial Judge must find that both modus operandi and defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the other crimes are established by clear and convincing evidence” (Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 4–514 [Farrell 11th ed]…).  Here, the record establishes that the court ruled that the evidence of defendant’s identity with respect to the attempted robbery would be admissible as a matter of law, but did not determine the relevancy of the identification evidence of the attempted robbery, nor did it properly balance its prejudicial effect as against its probative value… .  Additionally, there is no indication in the record that the court found that the modus operandi and defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the attempted robbery were established by clear and convincing evidence.  We thus conclude that the case before the jury became a prohibited “trial within a trial”… .  We further conclude that the evidence of the attempted robbery was “sufficiently prejudicial so as to deprive defendant of a fair trial”… .  People v Larkins, 756, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

,

Judge’s Refusal to Allow Defendant to Call Inmate Witness Required Reversal

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial court refused defendant’s request to present an inmate witness who might have supported defendant’s version of events:

CPL 630.10 provides for the attendance of an inmate witness in a criminal action or proceeding upon a demonstration of “reasonable cause to believe that such person possesses information material” to such proceeding.  Here, defendant made the requisite showing under that statute, and the court abused its discretion in refusing to order the production of the subject inmate witness whose testimony defendant sought to present at trial… .  There is no dispute that the proposed inmate witness spoke to the driver of the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger just before defendant’s arrest.  The proposed witness was at a distance of between 20 feet and 20 yards from the vehicle at the time of defendant’s arrest.  Moreover, we note that there was no fingerprint evidence in this case, which involved a top count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]), and the issue of defendant’s guilt turned largely on the testimony of two police detectives.  We cannot countenance the court’s refusal to allow defendant to present the testimony of a witness who might have supported defendant’s version of events.  People v Baxter, 599, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

, ,

Expert’s Affidavit Too Speculative to Raise Question of Fact About Proximate Cause

In reversing Supreme Court and dismissing a medical malpractice complaint, the Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s expert affidavit was speculative and therefore failed to raise a question of fact about whether the alleged negligence (the failure to order a particular CT scan) was the proximate cause of the injury:

The expert contends that, if that CT scan had been performed on February 16, 2004, “then diagnosis of [decedent]’s aortic dissection . . . would, more probably than not, have been made.”  Significantly, however, the medical records indicate that it was a CT scan of decedent’s head and chest, not a scan of his pelvis and abdomen, that revealed an aortic dissection on March 1, 2004.  Thus, the opinion of plaintiff’s expert that an abdominal and pelvic CT scan performed on February 16, 2004 would more likely than not have revealed an aortic dissection is speculative.  Wilk … v James, et al, 401, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

, ,

Prosecutor Need Not Accept Defendant’s Stipulation in Lieu of DNA Test

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of an Article 78 petition seeking prohibition with respect to an order that petitioner allow a buccal swab for DNA testing.  The petitioner argued that his offer to stipulate his DNA matched the DNA on two firearms should preclude the test. The Second Department held that a prosecutor was under no obligation to accept the offer to stipulate:

“[A] court order to obtain a [bodily] sample of a suspect may issue provided the People establish (1) probable cause to believe the suspect has committed the crime, (2) a clear indication’ that relevant material evidence will be found, and (3) the method used to secure it is safe and reliable”…. “In addition, the issuing court must weigh the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence to the investigation and the unavailability of less intrusive means of obtaining it, on the one hand, against concern for the suspect’s constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion on the other” …. Here, the petitioner … contends that the People’s motion should have been denied on the ground that his offer to stipulate that his DNA matched the DNA recovered from the two firearms at issue provided a less intrusive method of obtaining the evidence. However, the law is manifestly clear that the People are under no obligation to accept an offer by a defendant to stipulate to a fact or to an element of a charged crime …, and “the decision as to whether to decline or accept such a stipulation lies wholly within the prosecutor’s discretion”…. Accordingly, since the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, his petition is denied … .  Matter of Johnson v Shillingford, 2013 NY slip Op 05212, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

, ,

DNA Evidence Not Testimonial—No Denial of Right to Confrontation

In affirming defendant’s conviction, the Second Department noted that DNA evidence did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation because the challenged evidence was not testimonial:

[Defendant’s] right of confrontation (see US Const Sixth Amend) was not violated when an expert testified that a DNA profile produced by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (hereinafter OCME) from a sample of the decedent’s blood matched a DNA profile produced by the OCME from a sample of a stain on a pair of jeans given to the office by the police department. The DNA profiles were not testimonial …, but rather, were merely raw data that, standing alone, did not link the defendant to the crime… . The connection of the defendant to the crime was made by the testimony of police officers establishing that the defendant was wearing the subject jeans when arrested, and of the DNA expert, who testified that, based on his analysis, the two subject DNA profiles matched…. People v Pitre, 2013 NY slip Op 05231, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

,

Refusal to Allow Relative’s Testimony Did Not Deny Right to Present a Defense

The Second Department determined defendant was not denied his right to present a defense by County Court’s refusal to allow defendant’s sister-in-law to testify:

A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to produce witnesses, and “absent a showing of bad faith, an application to produce witnesses whose testimony would be relevant to the defense should not be denied”…. However, a trial court may, in its discretion, exclude evidence that is of slight or remote significance, speculative, lacking a good-faith factual basis, or solely based on hearsay….

In the instant case, the proposed testimony of the defendant’s sister-in-law regarding the relationship between the defendant and his wife consisted largely of hearsay, was cumulative to other evidence, and was only marginally, if at all, relevant. Consequently, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding that testimony, and that ruling did not deprive the defendant of the right to present a defense… .  People v Strzelecki, 2013 NY Slip Op 05233, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

, ,

References to Fingerprint Evidence Processed by Non-testifying Technician Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation

In determining defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated by latent fingerprint evidence processed by a technician who did not testify, the Fourth Department explained:

The technician who processed and photographed the fingerprint did not compare the latent print to the fingerprints of defendant or any other suspect. Thus, the technician’s findings were not testimonial because the latent fingerprint, “standing alone, shed[s] no light on the guilt of the accused in the absence of an expert’s opinion that the [latent fingerprint] match[es] a known sample”… .Moreover, the analyst who determined that the latent print matched one of defendant’s fingerprints in fact testified at trial and was available for cross-examination.    Therefore, defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him was not violated… .  People v Jackson, 645, 4th Dept 7-5-13

TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY

 

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