People v. Acevedo, 40 N.Y.2d 701 (1976)

A trial court has discretion to exclude in-court demonstrations or experiments if they are not sufficiently similar to the actual events at issue or if their probative value is outweighed by the potential for prejudice, confusion, or delay.

Summary

Acevedo was convicted of robbery based largely on voice identification by a hotel employee, Skolnick, who had extensive prior interactions with him. The defense sought to conduct an in-court experiment where Skolnick would be blindfolded and asked to identify Acevedo’s brother’s voice uttering phrases from the robbery. The trial court denied the request. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion. The court reasoned that the proposed experiment did not replicate the conditions under which Skolnick identified Acevedo’s voice and therefore had the potential to mislead the jury. The court modified the order of the Appellate Division by reversing the conviction of grand larceny in the third degree, determining that it was a lesser included offense.

Facts

Judith Skolnick, an assistant hotel manager, was accosted by a masked robber who forced her to open the manager’s office at gunpoint. The robber, familiar with the office layout, spoke frequently during the 20-25 minute robbery, both in Spanish to his accomplice and in English to the victims. Skolnick recognized the robber’s voice as that of Agilio Acevedo, a hotel security guard she had known and spoken with extensively for nearly two years. Acevedo had a slight speech impediment, particularly noticeable in his pronunciation of the word “security,” which further solidified her identification. Immediately after the robbery, Skolnick confidently identified Acevedo as the robber.

Procedural History

Acevedo was convicted after a jury trial. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to allow an in-court voice identification experiment during the cross-examination of the key witness. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Acevedo then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defense to conduct an in-court voice identification experiment during the cross-examination of the key witness.
2. Whether the defendant’s conviction for grand larceny in the third degree was proper given the convictions for robbery in the first and second degrees.

Holding

1. No, because the proposed experiment did not sufficiently replicate the conditions under which the witness identified the defendant’s voice and therefore had the potential to mislead the jury.
2. No, in part, because grand larceny in the third degree is a lesser included offense under the circumstances.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that while demonstrative evidence can be convincing, trial courts have broad discretion to exclude tests or demonstrations that are not properly relevant or that could mislead the jury. The proposed voice identification test was deemed dissimilar to the actual circumstances of Skolnick’s identification: her familiarity with Acevedo’s voice was extensive and recent, whereas her familiarity with his brother’s voice was limited and dated. The court noted, “The voice identification test proposed by the defendant in the case before us patently would not have duplicated the circumstances which surrounded Ms. Skolnick’s voice identification of the defendant.” The court also noted the jury had ample opportunity to evaluate the witness’s description of the defendant’s speech impediment. Finally, regarding the multiple convictions, the court noted that one crime is only included within another when it is impossible to commit the crime in the greater degree without also committing “by the same conduct” a crime in the lesser degree. The court reversed the conviction for larceny in the third degree holding that it was a lesser included offense in these circumstances.