People v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 12 November 1998 |
| Citation | 681 N.Y.S.2d 117,255 A.D.2d 693 |
| Parties | 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,060 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles HAMILTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Renee N. Doyle McLaughlin, Albany, for appellant.
Sol Greenberg, District Attorney (Christopher D. Horn, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
Before CARDONA, P.J., PETERS, SPAIN, CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), rendered October 19, 1994 in Albany County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of rape in the first degree (five counts), sodomy in the first degree (five counts), robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree (two counts).
On August 27, 1993, an Albany County Grand Jury handed down a 31-count indictment against defendant accusing him of committing a series of brutal rapes, sodomies, assaults and other crimes against seven women in the City of Albany between August 1991 and November 1992. Prior to trial, a hearing was conducted over several days to determine, inter alia, whether restriction fragment length polymorphism (hereinafter RFLP) DNA and polymerase chain reaction (hereinafter PCR) DNA evidence would be admissible at trial. 1 Although there was no dispute at the hearing that RFLP DNA testing was generally considered reliable in the scientific community (see, People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417, 611 N.Y.S.2d 97, 633 N.E.2d 451), defendant challenged the use of the more recently developed PCR DNA testing procedure. At the hearing, three experts testified for the People and agreed that PCR DNA testing is generally accepted in the scientific community as a reliable scientific procedure. Against the advice of counsel, and with a clear understanding of the implications thereof, defendant insisted on calling a DNA expert who also testified that PCR DNA testing is generally accepted in the scientific community as a reliable scientific procedure. Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was admissible subject to sufficient foundational showings by the People at trial concerning chain of custody.
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree (five counts), sodomy in the first degree (five counts), robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree (two counts). Supreme Court sentenced defendant to the longest permissible prison term as to each conviction and determined that each count should run consecutively to the extent permitted by law. 2 This appeal followed.
The sole issue raised on appeal, as limited by defendant's brief, is whether defendant's motion to suppress the PCR DNA evidence as unreliable should have been granted. Basing its analysis on Frye v. United States, (App.) 293 F. 1013, and People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417, 611 N.Y.S.2d 97, 633 N.E.2d 451, supra, Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brim v. State
... ... It is clear that scientific unanimity is not a precondition to a finding of general acceptance in the scientific community. People v. Dalcollo, 282 Ill.App.3d 944, 218 Ill.Dec. 435, 445, 669 N.E.2d 378, 387 (1996) ... Instead, general acceptance in the scientific community can be ... 408, 984 P.2d 16 (1999) ; Alverson v. State, 983 P.2d 498 (Okla.Crim.App.1999) ; Genry v. State, 735 So.2d 186 (1999) ; People v. Hamilton, 255 A.D.2d 693, 681 N.Y.S.2d 117 (N.Y.App.Div.1998) ; Commonwealth v. Blasioli, 552 Pa. 149, 713 A.2d 1117 (1998) ; Bolin v. State, 114 Nev ... ...
-
People v. Wakefield
...N.Y.S.3d 540 ). In view of the evidence adduced at the Frye hearing, we find that the court's ruling was proper (see People v. Hamilton, 255 A.D.2d 693, 694, 681 N.Y.S.2d 117 [1998], lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 1032, 684 N.Y.S.2d 497, 707 N.E.2d 452 [1998] ; see generally People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2......
-
People v. Borden
...105, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 901, 707 N.Y.S.2d 386, 728 N.E.2d 985, 94 N.Y.2d 948, 710 N.Y.S.2d 4, 731 N.E.2d 621; People v. Hamilton, 255 A.D.2d 693, 694, 681 N.Y.S.2d 117, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 1032, 684 N.Y.S.2d 497, 707 N.E.2d 452). In addition, the court properly determined that defendant'......
-
People v. Hall
... ... Morales, 227 A.D.2d 648, 643 N.Y.S.2d 217, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 926, 654 N.Y.S.2d 729, 677 N.E.2d 301; People v. Hamilton, 255 A.D.2d 693, 681 N.Y.S.2d 117, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 1032, 684 N.Y.S.2d 497, 707 N.E.2d 452). There was no need for a hearing to test the reliability of the statistical methods used to estimate how many people in the population share the DNA profile developed by the PCR method since any such ... ...