You are here: / Evidence
,

Affidavit Stating that Third Party Confessed to Murder Required a Hearing Pursuant to a Motion to Vacate the Judgment of Conviction Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court finding that a hearing should be held on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based on newly discovered evidence.  The evidence was an affidavit from a person to whom a third person is alleged to have confessed to the murder.  The Fourth Department determined the hearsay statement could be considered as a basis for the 440 motion because it met the criteria of a statement against penal interest and, although there was no showing the declarant was unavailable (a criterium for admissibility under this hearsay exception), it was reasonable to assume the declarant would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to testify (thereby becoming unavailable).

We agree with defendant that where, as here, the declarations exculpate the defendant, they “are subject to a more lenient standard, and will be found ‘sufficient if [the supportive evidence] establish[es] a reasonable possibility that the statement might be true’ ”…. That is because “ ‘[d]epriving a defendant of the opportunity to offer into evidence [at trial] another person’s admission to the crime with which he or she has been charged, even though that admission may . . . be offered [only] as a hearsay statement, may deny a defendant his or her fundamental right to present a defense’ ” ….  Although the People contend that there is no evidence that the third party is unavailable, we conclude that, inasmuch as the statements attributed to the third party implicate him in a murder, there is a likelihood that, if called to testify at a trial, he would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and thus become unavailable … .  People v McFarland, 729, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Evidence Insufficient to Support Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree—No One In Line of Fire

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree in a shooting case where there was no evidence anyone was near the line of fire:

“A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct [that] creates a grave risk of death to another person” (Penal Law § 120.25). The evidence at trial established only that defendant stood on a street corner and fired up to five shots from a handgun. The People “presented no evidence that any person . . . ‘was in or near the line of fire’ ” so as to create a grave risk of death to any such person… .  People v Stanley, 757, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Statement Correctly Admitted as Dying Declaration

In affirming the conviction, the Fourth Department held that a statement was correctly admitted as a dying declaration:

[The trial court admitted] as a dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule the testimony of a prosecution witness that, after being shot in the inner thigh, the victim stated, “I got robbed” and “I got shot.”    The People presented evidence establishing that, when the witness arrived at the scene, the victim was bleeding heavily from a femoral artery wound, his clothes were soaked in blood from the waist down, and he was inhaling and exhaling very hard.  The victim stated to the witness, “I’m gonna die, I’m gonna die”; he then became totally unresponsive and, shortly thereafter, he died. Thus, we conclude that the court properly determined that the victim’s statements were made with “a sense of impending death, with no hope of recovery” …  .  People v Elder, 713, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Defendant Was Lawfully Seized by Police Under these Facts

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion, finding that the defendant was not unlawfully seized under the following facts:

At the suppression hearing, a police officer testified that he stopped defendant because defendant was riding the motorbike in the road without a helmet.  When the officer asked defendant whether he had any identification, defendant answered, “no,” and took a step back, whereupon the officer reached toward defendant in an attempt to frisk him.  Before the officer could detain him, however, defendant ran away and, during his flight, punched another officer who had joined in the pursuit. Defendant was soon apprehended and found to be in possession of a loaded firearm, 20 bags of marihuana, and more than $2,000 in cash. People v Bradley, 685, 4th Dept 7-5-13

STREET STOPS, SEARCH AND SEIZURE

,

Motion to Vacate Conviction Based upon Co-Defendant’s Affidavit Stating Defendant Not Involved Denied

In affirming the denial of a 440 motion to vacate defendant’s conviction based upon a co-defendant’s affidavit stating the defendant was not involved in the crimes, the Fourth Department wrote:

It is well settled that on a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction based on newly discovered evidence, the movant must establish, inter alia, that “there is newly discovered evidence: (1) which will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) which was discovered since the trial; (3) which could not have been discovered prior to trial; (4) which is material; (5) which is not cumulative; and[] (6) which does not merely impeach or contradict the record evidence” ….  People v Smith, 642, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

Evidence Insufficient to Support Criminal Contempt in the First Degree—No Evidence of Intent to Harass (Two Dissenting Justices)

The Fourth Department, over a dissent by two justices, determined the evidence was legally insufficient to support criminal contempt in the first degree:

Even assuming, arguendo, that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant repeatedly made telephone calls to his ex-girlfriend, we agree with him that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he intended by those calls to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm her, with no purpose of legitimate communication (see § 215.51 [b] [iv];….    Rather, the only inference to be drawn from the evidence is that defendant made the calls with the intent to discuss issues of child support and visitation, not to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm his ex-girlfriend. We therefore modify the judgment accordingly.  People v Webb, 619, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

440 Motion Seeking DNA Testing of Evidence Properly Denied

In affirming the denial of a 440 motion by a defendant convicted of murder seeking DNA testing of blood evidence, the Fourth Department wrote:

We conclude that the court properly denied that part of the motion seeking testing … “because defendant failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that, had those items been tested and had the results been admitted at trial, the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant”… .  People v Swift, 617, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Evidence Needed to Corroborate Accomplice Testimony and Evidence Admissible at Restitution Hearing Explained

In affirming the conviction, the Fourth Department explained the criteria for corroboration of accomplice testimony, and the admissible evidence in a restitution hearing:

“New York’s accomplice corroboration protection requires only enough nonaccomplice evidence to assure that the accomplices have offered credible probative evidence that connects the accomplice evidence to the defendant”…. Even the most “[s]eemingly insignificant matters may harmonize with the accomplice’s narrative so as to provide the necessary corroboration” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).    Here, defendant’s accomplice testified that he assisted defendant in burglarizing the victim’s home and stealing the victim’s car, and that testimony was corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses that defendant was seen driving the victim’s stolen car the day after the burglary.* * *

The victim testified at the restitution hearing and provided a detailed breakdown of the value of the stolen items as well as documents establishing the cost of replacing the ignition and locks on her vehicle, which was returned to her. In addition, the amount of restitution owed to the victim’s insurance company, which was financially harmed by reimbursing the victim for a portion of the cost of changing the ignition and locks on her vehicle, was supported by the claim it submitted to the Genesee County Probation Department. It is immaterial that an employee of the insurance company did not testify at the restitution hearing because “[a]ny relevant evidence, not legally privileged, may be received [at a restitution hearing] regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence” (CPL 400.30 [4] …). People v Wilson, 275, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

Right of Confrontation Not Violated by Results of Tests by Persons Who Were Not Called as Witnesses

In determining defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated by evidence of DNA testing:

The court properly admitted files prepared by the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office containing DNA profiles derived from the testing of evidence recovered from the crime scenes, since the documents containing the DNA profiles, which were prepared prior to the defendant’s arrest, “did not, standing alone, link [him] to the crime” …. The testimony of the People’s expert witness established that she conducted the critical analysis at issue by comparing the DNA profiles derived from the crime scene evidence to the defendant’s DNA profile and concluding that all of the profiles matched…. Moreover, the DNA profile generated from the swab of the defendant’s cheek, standing alone, shed no light on the issue of the defendant’s guilt in the absence of the expert’s testimony that it matched the profiles derived from the crime scene evidence….  People v Washington, 2013 NY Slip Op 05096, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY

 

,

Evidence of Pornography Allowed as Molineux Evidence to Show Intent

In affirming the defendant’s conviction for sexual offenses against a young child, the Third Department determined the trial court properly allowed “Molineux” evidence about pornography found on and/or searched for on defendant’s computer. Among the reasons for letting the evidence of pornography in evidence was to demonstrate defendant’s intent.  The Third Department wrote:

While  intent can  often be inferred from the sexual act itself…, here, defendant claimed to the police investigator and the CPS caseworker that much  of the sexual contact and the child’s knowledge occurred accidentally. The foregoing  was,  thus, admissible  to  prove  that defendant’s  charged  sexual contact  was not accidental or mistaken but, rather, was intentional and sexual … and motivated by his unusual sexual interest in young children. Supreme Court carefully considered  the  prejudicial  effect  of  the  evidence, limited or excluded much  of it, including the actual images and videos, and provided numerous contemporaneous and appropriate limiting  instructions. We  cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in finding that the  probative  value  of the admitted evidence outweighed the potential for undue prejudice… People v Sorrell, 103426, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

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