People v. Palmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Palmer

65 A.D.3d 1389, 885 N.Y.S.2d 621

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.3d 1389 (People v. Palmer) 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. Palmer, 65 A.D.3d 1389, 885 N.Y.S.2d 621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinions

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), rendered November 29, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the admission into evidence of a laboratory report containing DNA profile data prepared by a laboratory analyst who did not testify at trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford v Washington (541 US 36 [2004]), as the report did not constitute a testimonial statement (see People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 159-160 [2008], cert denied sub nom Meekins v New York, 557 US —, 129 S Ct 2856 [June 29, 2009]; cf. Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts, 557 US —, 129 S Ct 2527 [June 25, 2009]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the People’s contentions. Skelos, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), rendered November 29, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the admission into evidence of a laboratory report containing DNA profile data prepared by a laboratory analyst who did not testify at trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford v Washington (541 US 36 [2004]), as the report did not constitute a testimonial statement (see People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 159-160 [2008], cert denied sub nom Meekins v New York, 557 US —, 129 S Ct 2856 [June 29, 2009]; cf. Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts, 557 US —, 129 S Ct 2527 [June 25, 2009]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the People’s contentions. Skelos, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 1389, 885 N.Y.S.2d 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-palmer-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack