People v. Hurdle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hurdle

56 A.D.2d 317, 867 N.Y.S.2d 411

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 317 (People v. Hurdle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Hurdle, 56 A.D.2d 317, 867 N.Y.S.2d 411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.), entered on or about January 12, 2007, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.30 (1-a) motion for DNA testing, unanimously affirmed.

Even construing defendant’s “reply” affidavit to be a supplementary motion for an order directing the People to locate additional evidence containing DNA, and, if located, to perform forensic DNA testing on that evidence, that motion was without merit. If DNA was present at all the possible crime scene locations posited by defendant, and if testing revealed that the DNA was that of the codefendant but not that of defendant, these results would not have created a reasonable probability of a different verdict (see People v Pitts, 4 NY3d 303, 311 [2005]), because they would still be consistent with the trial evidence and the People’s trial theory as to the roles played by each perpetrator. Concur — Saxe, J.P, Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.), entered on or about January 12, 2007, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.30 (1-a) motion for DNA testing, unanimously affirmed.

Even construing defendant’s “reply” affidavit to be a supplementary motion for an order directing the People to locate additional evidence containing DNA, and, if located, to perform forensic DNA testing on that evidence, that motion was without merit. If DNA was present at all the possible crime scene locations posited by defendant, and if testing revealed that the DNA was that of the codefendant but not that of defendant, these results would not have created a reasonable probability of a different verdict (see People v Pitts, 4 NY3d 303, 311 [2005]), because they would still be consistent with the trial evidence and the People’s trial theory as to the roles played by each perpetrator. Concur — Saxe, J.P, Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 317, 867 N.Y.S.2d 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hurdle-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack