Study Notes on New York Evidence Law

NEW YORK EVIDENCE LAW

  • Commentary designed to supplement class discussion on evidentiary principles in the Federal Rules of Evidence and federal common law.
  • Based primarily on the Instructor’s own research, with references to NY Criminal Procedure and Evidence outlines by:
    • Professors Robert Pitler (Brooklyn School of Law)
    • Gary Kelder (Syracuse University College of Law)
    • Cases analyzed by Professors Michael M. Martin and Alpin J. Cameron (Fordham University School of Law).
  • Author: Travis H. D. Lewin, Syracuse University College of Law. (All Rights Reserved)

RELEVANCE

  • The question of relevance, similar to FRE §401, is determined by the trial judge.
    • Judges can admit evidence outside the jury's presence and are not bound by rules of evidence during relevance determination.
  • Illustrative Case:
    • People v. Yates, 290 A.D.2d 888, 736 N.Y.S.2d 798 (2nd Dept. 2002) - Computer-generated video on "shaken baby syndrome" properly admitted.
    • Reversible error found in Leventhal v. Forest Hills Gardens Corp., 2003 WL 22100233 where only one of four photographs was admitted in a slip and fall case despite the others being relevant to the issue of notice.

CONDITIONAL RELEVANCE - FRE R. 104(b)

  • NY judges, similar to federal judges applying FRE, Rule 104(b), determine if sufficient evidence exists for a jury to rationally find that a condition has been met.
  • NY does not have a uniform approach to conditional relevancy; each rule must be evaluated separately.
    • Comparison with FRE R. 104(b) - FRE requires the judge to find a jury could reasonably establish conditional fact via preponderance of evidence, while NY simply requires that a jury could rationally find it.
  • The crime's fundamental element or civil issue must meet the necessary persuasion standard (e.g., beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence).

RELEVANCY - FRE R. 401

  • The test for relevancy in NY closely mirrors the FRE:
    • People v. Scarola, 71 N.Y.2d 769 (1988): "All relevant evidence is admissible unless its admission violates an exclusionary rule."
    • Evidence is considered relevant if it tends to prove a material fact, altering the likelihood of an action's determination compared to without the evidence.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF RELEVANCY

  1. Eyewitness Testimony
    • Testimony relevant if it aids the jury in assessing the reliability of a witness's identification. People v. Huertas, 75 N.Y.2d 487 (1990).
  2. Negative Identification Evidence
    • Relevant when an eyewitness previously rejected a suspect, enhancing their ability to distinguish the perpetrator. People v. Bolden, 58 N.Y.2d 741 (1982).
    • Further extended in People v. Wilder, 93 N.Y.2d 352 (1999) where identification post-drug bust was used to establish the eyewitness's ability to identify the true suspect.
  3. Clear Link Rule
    • Previously required a clear link between a third party and a crime for culpability evidence to be admitted, rejected by People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351 (2001).
  4. Personal Injury Case
    • It was erroneous to exclude evidence of a plaintiff consuming alcohol before an accident. Huerta v. NY City Transit Authority, 290 A.D.2d 33 (1st Dept. 2001).
  5. Computer Generated Evidence
    • Lack of cases in NY, but instances in other jurisdictions arms support its relevance to illustrate case theory, e.g., Commonwealth v. Serge.

UNFAIR PREJUDICE - FRE R. 403

  • NY courts mirror federal principles: relevant evidence may still be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by potential unfair prejudice or misleading notions.
  • NEW: Evidence of third-party guilt is admissible if it suggests reasonable inference about the defendant’s innocence, but the judge can exclude bare suspicions.
    • Failure to admit exonerating evidence violates a defendant's right to a meaningful opportunity for a comprehensive defense. Holmes v. South Carolina, 126 S.Ct. 1727 (2006).

WITNESS COMPETENCY

Common Law Disabilities Retained in NY

  1. Adultery Cases
    • Limited spousal disability: neither spouse can testify against the other, except to prove the marriage, disprove adultery, or counter defenses supporting adultery claims; this restrictions persists only throughout the marriage (CPLR §4502(a)).
  2. Lord Mansfield's Rule
    • Prohibits testimony regarding non-access that leads to a conclusion of illegitimacy.
  3. Infants in Criminal Cases
    • Children under 12 may testify without being sworn if deemed capable by the court (CPL §60.20).
  4. Dead Man's Statute
    • Applies solely in civil actions, prohibits a party from testifying about personal transactions with a deceased or mentally incompetent person (CPLR §4519).
  5. Judicial Testimony
    • A judge cannot testify in their presiding case but incidental remarks may be construed as testimony.
  6. Jurors
    • Generally cannot testify about deliberation matters but may clarify verdict-related queries. They can testify about improper influences and indecorous jury behaviors. People v. Maragh, 94 N.Y.2d 569 (2000).

CHARACTER EVIDENCE

New York Character Rules

  • Admissibility rules parallel federal systems but include significant limitations:
  1. Character evidence for criminal actions is mostly provable with community reputation evidence unless put at issue in pleadings; personal opinions are not acceptable.
  2. Civil actions typically do not permit character evidence, except in defamation.
  3. Habit testimony must distinguish from character evidence and is admissible only if it shows regular behavior patterns.
  4. In criminal actions, the defendant can present evidence of good moral character; specific conduct or personal opinions not allowed.
  5. Prosecutors may present evidence of the defendant’s bad character if rebutting good character evidence first introduced by the defendant.
  6. The defendant's character witness is subject to cross-examination on knowledge of any prior criminal conduct related to the specific character trait, but not about personal knowledge of such incidents.

VICTIM'S CHARACTER IN HOMICIDE CASES

  1. Defendant in self-defense cases may not introduce evidence of victim's violent character unless defendant knew about it.
  2. Victim’s past violent acts not admissible to indicate who was the first aggressor in a confrontation.
  3. The Court of Appeals states in People v. Petty, 7 N.Y.3d 777 (2006) that evidence of the victim's intimidating behavior toward the defendant must be included in jury instructions if relevant.

EVIDENCE FOR IMPEACHMENT/REHABILITATION

  1. Witness impeachment regarding character for truthfulness allowed under NY law and can include prior inconsistent statements and other misconduct but depends on the witness's status (e.g., key witness).
  2. Any witness, including victims or defendants, can be cross examined on moral character to challenge truthfulness. The community reputation evidence is the only admissible evidence about previous conduct; specific instances are not.
  3. Any evidence that negates a witness’s claim of moral character can lead to rebuttal by community reputation witnesses.
  4. Rehabilitation evidence can be prompted by attempts to impeach through character testimony.
  5. Impeachment can result from any instance when a witness may have acted immorally or illegally.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CONCEPTS

UNCHARGED CRIMES

  • NY follows Molineux Rule, allowing uncharged crimes to be relevant to other issues such as motive. The evidence's probative value must be weighed against prejudice.
  • Molineux’s five reasons for admission:
    • Motive
    • Intent
    • Absence of mistake or accident
    • Common scheme or plan
    • Identity

HEARSAY PRINCIPLES

  1. NY maintains strict hearsay definitions, usually mirroring FRE definitions.
  2. Out-of-court statements offered for truth are generally inadmissible unless they fall under exceptions.
  3. Prior statements cannot be used to bolster credibility unless rebutting claims of fabrication.

ADMISSIONS IN EVIDENCE

  1. Admissions in New York are seen as exceptions to hearsay rules.
  2. Admission can be inferred from silence under specific circumstances within civil contexts.

OBJECTIONS AND TRIAL MOTIONS

  1. NY mandates specific objections for preservation for appeal, differing from general objections.
  2. Harmless error applications follow strict definitions and precedents, affecting the outcomes of cases depending on the severity of errors made.
  3. Continuing objections are acknowledged, allowing for a sustained objection across similar lines of questioning.

MEMORY REVIVED & PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED

  1. NY allows for past recollections recorded under specific conditions.
  2. Present memory may be refreshed using any document, irrespective of prior viewing, with restrictions on jury access to the document.

SELF-DEFENSE RIGHTS

  • Impeachment methodologies include establishing witness motivations or biases without limiting the tools available to impeach credible witnesses.

RESIDUAL/OMNIBUS EXCEPTION

  • NY lacks many exceptions found in FRE, establishing strict criteria for outliers, generally more confining than federal rules.