People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40 (1979)

Statistical and experimental evidence is admissible only if a proper foundation is laid establishing the reliability of the methodology and similarity of test conditions to the actual circumstances of the case.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order insofar as it concerned a conviction for murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon. The court found that the trial court erred in admitting statistical evidence about suicide victims’ gun handling and experimental evidence involving test-firing the murder weapon at objects, including a rabbit covered with human hair. The prosecution failed to establish a proper foundation for the reliability of the statistical study and the similarity of the experimental conditions to the actual circumstances of the shooting. The court ordered a new trial on the murder and second-degree weapon possession charges and a resentencing for the third-degree weapon possession conviction.

Facts

The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon. The prosecution introduced evidence of a study of suicides indicating how far a suicide victim typically holds a gun from their body. Additionally, the prosecution presented experimental evidence from test-firing the weapon at various objects, including a rabbit covered with human hair to simulate the victim’s scalp. The defendant objected to both the statistical and experimental evidence.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted in the trial court. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree on the law alone. The People appealed the reversal of the weapon possession conviction, and the defendant appealed the murder conviction and sought resentencing on a related weapon possession charge to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting statistical evidence about suicide victims’ gun handling without a proper foundation establishing the reliability of the study.
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting experimental evidence involving test-firing the murder weapon at objects, including animal tissue, without establishing a substantial similarity between the test conditions and the actual circumstances of the shooting.

Holding

1. Yes, because the People failed to lay a proper foundation showing that the results of the statistical study were reliable.
2. Yes, because the People failed to establish a substantial similarity between the skin and tissue of the test subject and that of a human victim.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the statistical evidence regarding suicide victims was inadmissible because the prosecution failed to establish a proper foundation showing that the results of the study were reliable. The court noted that “[t]here is nothing in the record, however, to indicate that the sampling was representative, that reliable criteria were employed or that the conclusions on which the statistics were based were in fact accurate.”

Regarding the experimental evidence, the court found that the test-firing of the weapon at various objects was also problematic. Specifically, the court took issue with the use of a rabbit covered with human hair to simulate the victim’s head. The court stated, “This obviously was not the kind of neutral test designed only to produce the limited results the People now contend. If at the new trial the People offer to show the effects of a gun shot from this weapon on animal tissue, they must first establish that there is a substantial similarity between the skin and tissue of the test subject and that of a human victim.” This emphasizes the requirement for the test to be as similar as possible to the actual event for the results to be relevant and admissible.

The court further reasoned that because the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was factually related to the murder charge, the reversal of the murder conviction should also require a new trial on the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The court ordered the case be remitted to the Appellate Division for further proceedings on that charge.