People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563 (2009)
Hearsay evidence is admissible in Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) proceedings if a reasonable person would deem it trustworthy based on the circumstances surrounding its creation.
Summary
This case clarifies the standard for admitting hearsay evidence in SORA hearings to determine a sex offender’s risk level. The Court of Appeals held that hearsay is admissible if a reasonable person would deem it trustworthy based on the circumstances surrounding its creation. Internal District Attorney’s office documents may constitute reliable hearsay if a proper foundation is laid, explaining their creation, personnel involved, and sources of information. Without such a foundation, the evidence is inadmissible. The court distinguished this from documents like case summaries or presentence reports, where the foundation is already established by their well-known creation process.
Facts
Tyrone Mingo pleaded guilty to rape in 1990. At a 2006 SORA redetermination hearing, he was designated a level two risk. The District Attorney presented internal office documents (Data Analysis Form, Grand Jury Synopsis Sheet, and an Early Case Assessment Bureau Data Sheet) indicating Mingo had threatened the victim with a “chrome strip” or “piece of metal” during the rape. This led to an assessment of 30 points under factor 1 of the Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI), classifying him as a moderate risk. The defense objected to these unsworn, unsigned documents as unreliable hearsay.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court relied on the DA’s documents and the indictment to designate Mingo a level two offender. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the documents constituted reliable hearsay. A dissenting judge argued the DA failed to establish a proper foundation. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether internal documents generated by a District Attorney’s office can be considered “reliable hearsay” and thus admissible in a SORA proceeding to determine a sex offender’s risk level without a proper foundation.
Holding
No, because internal documents generated by a District Attorney’s office do not automatically qualify as reliable hearsay in SORA proceedings. A proper foundation is required to establish their trustworthiness based on the circumstances of their creation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized the importance of an accurate risk assessment in SORA proceedings to protect the public. It established a standard that hearsay is reliable and admissible if a reasonable person would deem it trustworthy based on the circumstances of the proof. The Court acknowledged that internal DA documents are similar to case summaries and presentence reports, but noted a key difference: unlike case summaries and presentence reports, which are created with the explicit understanding they will be used by courts, internal DA documents require a foundation explaining their creation, the personnel involved, and the sources of information. Without this explanation, the documents lack the requisite indicia of reliability. The court stated, “[H]earsay is reliable for SORA purposes—and, therefore, admissible—if, based on the circumstances surrounding the development of the proof, a reasonable person would deem it trustworthy.” The court remitted the case to allow the District Attorney to establish this foundation.