New York Law Review

People v. Hill, 26 N.Y.3d 685 (2015): Admissibility of Victim Statements in Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) Proceedings

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

People v. Hill, 26 N.Y.3d 685 (2015)

In Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) proceedings, courts may assess points based on reliable hearsay evidence, including sworn statements from victims, even regarding uncharged criminal acts, provided the statements have a requisite indicia of reliability.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of victim statements in Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) proceedings. The defendant was convicted of incest and challenged the SORA court’s risk level assessment, which included points for forcible compulsion and victim’s age under 16, based on the victim’s sworn statement, and points for a prior endangering the welfare of a child conviction. The Court held that the SORA court properly assessed points based on the victim’s sworn statement, finding it to be reliable hearsay evidence and in compliance with Penal Law § 210.45. The Court also found the SORA court did not abuse its discretion in declining a downward departure from the presumptive risk level three, considering aggravating factors not fully captured by the Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI), including the violent nature of the prior offense and the gravity of the current offense.

Facts

The defendant was convicted of third-degree incest. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders prepared a risk assessment instrument (RAI), assessing him at a presumptive risk level three. The assessment included points for forcible compulsion, the victim’s age being under 16, and a prior endangering the welfare of a child conviction. The SORA court agreed with the Board and the People, assigning a total of 115 points. The court’s decision relied on a sworn statement by the victim, detailing multiple acts of sexual intercourse, including the use of force and the victim’s age. The defendant appealed the risk level assessment.

Procedural History

The SORA court assessed the defendant as a risk level three sex offender. The Appellate Division affirmed the SORA court’s decision. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the SORA court erred in assessing points under risk factors 1 and 5 (forcible compulsion and age of the victim) based on the victim’s sworn statement concerning uncharged conduct.

2. Whether the SORA court abused its discretion by not granting a downward departure from the presumptive risk level three, given that the prior endangering the welfare of a child conviction was not sexual in nature.

Holding

1. No, because the SORA court properly assessed points under risk factors 1 and 5 based on the victim’s sworn statement.

2. No, because the SORA court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a downward departure from the presumptive risk level three was not warranted.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals stated that

More ARTICLES