People v. Roshia

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Roshia

63 N.E.3d 1152, 28 N.Y.3d 989

New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 20, 2016·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant was indicted by a grand jury, a sexual assault evidence kit was taken from the victim, and County Court’s order directing defendant to provide a DNA sample was authorized by statute (CPL 240.40 [2] [b] [v]). Accordingly, County Court did not err in granting the People’s application directing defendant to provide a buccal swab for testing.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant was indicted by a grand jury, a sexual assault evidence kit was taken from the victim, and County Court’s order directing defendant to provide a DNA sample was authorized by statute (CPL 240.40 [2] [b] [v]). Accordingly, County Court did not err in granting the People’s application directing defendant to provide a buccal swab for testing.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

People v. Roshia, 63 N.E.3d 1152, 28 N.Y.3d 989 (N.Y. 2016).

Pincite

63 N.E.3d 1152 (People v. Roshia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related