You are here: / CONFRONTATION CLAUSE

Tag Archive for: CONFRONTATION CLAUSE

,

Allowing the Prosecutor to Tell the Jury in Summation that the Person Who Provided the Police with a Tip Must Have Identified the Defendant as the Perpetrator Was Reversible Error—The Prosecutor Effectively Told the Jury Another “Witness” Had Identified the Defendant, But that “Witness” Did Not Testify and Could Not, Therefore, Be Cross-Examined

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the prosecutor, in summation, had improperly been allowed to tell the jury that the person who provided the police with a tip must have identified the defendant as the perpetrator.  Because the person who provided the tip did not testify, the defendant was effectively deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine a “witness against him:”

During summation, the prosecutor strongly implied that whoever had provided the tip had implicated the defendant: “Someone calls 577-TIPS . . . . [The detective] gets this information and where does he go? 82-01 Rockaway Beach Boulevard, make a left out of the elevator. I’m looking for a guy named Rick who lives on the sixth floor. Ricardo Benitez.” After defense counsel’s objection to this remark was overruled, the prosecutor continued: “Gave Detective Lopez the following address. 82-01 Rockaway Beach Boulevard, 6B. Rick. Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to Rick.” Defense counsel again objected, but the Supreme Court again overruled the objection.

The only purpose of the prosecutor’s improper comments was to suggest to the jury, in this one-witness identification case, that the complainant was not the only person who had implicated the defendant in the commission of the robbery (see People v Mendez, 22 AD3d 688, 689). Moreover, in overruling defense counsel’s objections, the Supreme Court “legitimized” the prosecutor’s improper remarks (People v Lloyd, 115 AD3d 766, 769). The defendant, of course, was given no opportunity to cross-examine the unnamed witness who had allegedly provided the tip … . The evidence against the defendant was not overwhelming, so there is no basis for the application of harmless error analysis … . To the extent that the defendant failed to preserve the claim by specific objection, we reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, and reverse the judgment … . People v Benitez, 2014 NY Slip Op 05890, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

, ,

Past Domestic Violence Admissible to Show Intent in Rape Case—Victim’s Statements in Hospital Report Admissible under Business Records Exception/Confrontation Clause Not Implicated Because Statements Were Not Testimonial—Victim’s Statements Shortly After the Rape Admissible as Excited Utterances

In a case where the defendant was charged with raping his ex-girlfriend, the Third Department determined past incidents of domestic violence were properly allowed in evidence to demonstrate intent, statements made by the victim (who died before trial from an unrelated cause) included in a hospital report were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and statements made by the victim shortly after the rape were admissible as excited utterances.  With respect to the hospital records, the court wrote:

County Court properly allowed admission of statements that the victim made during her medical examination. “Hospital records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule as long as the information relates to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment” … . Details of the abuse, even including the perpetrator’s identity, may be relevant to diagnosis and treatment when the assault occurs within a domestic violence relationship because the medical provider must consider the victim’s safety when creating a discharge plan and gauging the patient’s psychological needs … . The physician who examined the victim testified that all of the information in the medical records was relevant to and gathered for purposes of diagnosis or treatment, and the primary purpose of the examination was to care for the patient’s health and safety, although a secondary purpose of the forensic examination was to gather evidence that could be used in the future for purposes of prosecution. Considering this information, although the victim was unavailable to testify because she died before trial (from causes unrelated to defendant’s crimes), defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated because the statements were not testimonial… . People v Pham, 2014 NY Slip Op 04276, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

,

Codefendant’s Statement Was Admissible—the Fact that the Statement Implicated the Defendant in the Light of Other Trial Evidence Did Not Violate Defendant’s Right of Confrontation

The Third Department determined a co-defendant’s statement, which had been redacted to exclude references to the defendant, was admissible.  The defendant’s argument that the statement implicated him in the light of the trial evidence was rejected:

A defendant’s right to confront witnesses is violated by the admission of “the facially incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant” …; however, no such violation occurs where, as here, the codefendant’s statement incriminates the defendant only in light of other evidence produced at trial … . Nor did the use of plural pronouns such as “we” and “they” in the statement necessarily indicate any involvement by defendant … . Accordingly, the statement was admissible, and defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated by the People’s arguments that drew inferences about his participation by linking the statement with other trial evidence … . People v Maschio, 2014 NY Slip Op 03551, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

, ,

Prosecutor’s Creating the Impression Non-Testifying Witness Identified Defendant as Shooter Violated Defendant’s Right to Confront the Witnesses Against Him

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that a new trial was required because the prosecutor created the impression a non-testifying witness [Drake] had identified the defendant as the shooter.  Although the error was not preserved by objection, the court addressed the issue in the interest of justice.  The court noted as well that the defense counsel’s objections to the prosecutor’s comments during summation (which reinforced the impression) were erroneously overruled:

Generally, during cross-examination, a party cannot introduce extrinsic evidence or call another witness to contradict a witness’s answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching such witness’s credibility … . As the defendant correctly contends, during the cross-examination of Lloyd, the prosecutor improperly gave the impression that Drake, who did not testify, implicated the defendant while the police questioned her … . Notably, the prosecutor acknowledged at the second trial that Drake had testified at the initial trial, and that Drake had not identified the defendant as having been present at the party.

The defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him prohibits the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he [or she] was unavailable to testify, and the defendant ha[s] had a prior opportunity for cross-examination” (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 53-54; see People v Pealer, 20 NY3d 447, 453, cert denied _____US_____, 134 S Ct 105). Here, the defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him was violated.  People v Lloyd, 2014 NY Slip Op 01631, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

,

Statements to Police Officer by Victim at the Scene Were “Nontestimonial” and Were Admissible as Excited Utterances

The Third Department determined a police officer’s testimony about what the assault victim, Stokes, said at the scene and a video of the officer’s encounter with the victim did not violate the defendant’s right to confront witnesses because the admitted statements were “nontestimonial” and “excited utterances.” Stokes had died before the trial:

The officer testified that Stokes said that she had been hit in the head with a bat, described her assailant, and said that he was in a nearby community center. The officer further testified that police then began looking for defendant. The video reveals that the officer encountered Stokes immediately upon arriving at the scene. She was bleeding profusely from her head and complaining of dizziness. The officer asked Stokes about her assailant’s location, description and name, where the attack had occurred, and whether there were other victims, promptly relaying her answers to other police officers and emergency medical personnel who were dispatched to locate and assist Moore and pursue defendant. After the first few minutes, the officer asked no further questions about the incident, concentrating instead on attempting to calm Stokes as she became increasingly agitated and apprehensive about, among other things, the fact that defendant had not been found. County Court correctly determined that the statements by Stokes were admissible as excited utterances … . Further, we find no constitutional violation. The video reveals that the officer’s primary purpose in questioning Stokes was “to enable the police to meet an ongoing emergency and apprehend the perpetrator, not to provide evidence for later prosecution,” and Crawford [541 US 36} does not preclude such nontestimonial statements…. People v Anderson, 105060, 3rd Dept 2-27-14

 

, ,

Failure to Call One of the Parties Who Signed a Drug-Analysis Report Did Not Violate the Confrontation Clause/No Evidence the Party Conducted Any Testing or Analysis

The Third Department determined that the Confrontation Clause was not violated because a party [Lafond] who had signed the report identifying the controlled substance defendant was accused of selling did not testify.  The court determined Lafond had nothing to do with the chemical tests and analysis.  The party who actually did the chemical tests and analysis, Brant, testified:

…Brant – the analyst who identified the oxycodone, performed the chemical tests on it, determined the nature of the substance, and authored the report – in fact testified and was subject to crossexamination … .  The report is certified pursuant to CPL 190.30 (2) with the following language: “I, Clifford E. Brant, . . . hereby certify” and then states that it is “my [i.e. Brant’s] report and contains the opinions and interpretations of the examination I performed in the above referenced case” (emphasis added).  Brant also testified that Lafond cosigned the report after an administrative review of it, as required by State Police protocol.  There is no support in the record for the proposition that Lafond examined or analyzed the substance, observed Brant doing so, or was signing the report in that capacity.  Indeed, Brant testified that after he alone performed the forensic chemical testing, he sealed, signed and dated the laboratory bag containing the pill, which remained intact as of the trial, supporting the conclusion that Lafond only read and signed the report after it was completed to ensure that proper procedure was followed …, and she had no role in ascertaining or verifying the identity of the substance in issue.  Thus, the “actual analyst who performed the tests” … and “wr[o]te [the] report[]” … testified.   We find that Lafond, who neither analyzed the substance in issue nor authored the report, was not a “witness” against defendant for purposes of the Confrontation Clause … and, accordingly, no Crawford violation occurred as a result of the People admitting Brant’s report into evidence without calling Lafond to testify. People v Wolz, 104909, 104910, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

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