People ex rel. McGee v. Walters, 62 N.Y.2d 317 (1984): Sufficiency of Evidence in Parole Revocation Hearings

People ex rel. McGee v. Walters, 62 N.Y.2d 317 (1984)

In parole revocation hearings, the statutory presumption of firearm possession in a vehicle, coupled with observations of suspicious behavior by the parolee, can provide sufficient evidence to support a finding of parole violation, and the failure to request production of documents or an adjournment to obtain them waives the right to raise that issue on appeal.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that sufficient evidence supported the hearing officer’s determination that McGee violated his parole by possessing firearms. The court relied on the statutory presumption concerning firearm possession in automobiles, along with testimony from arresting officers about McGee’s suspicious movements in the vehicle after being pulled over. Furthermore, because McGee did not request the production of police reports or an adjournment to obtain them at the hearing, the court found that he could not raise this issue on appeal. The hearing officer’s express statement that the decision did not rely on hearsay further solidified the Court’s reasoning.

Facts

McGee, a parolee, was in a car that was pulled over by police. After being signaled to stop, McGee bent forward beneath his seat and then leaned toward the passenger. A search of the vehicle revealed two firearms. At the parole revocation hearing, arresting officers testified about McGee’s movements. The hearing officer determined that McGee violated his parole by possessing the firearms.

Procedural History

Following the parole revocation hearing, the hearing officer found that McGee violated the terms of his parole. The Appellate Division affirmed the hearing officer’s decision. McGee appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the statutory presumption regarding firearm possession in automobiles, combined with the arresting officers’ testimony, was sufficient to support the determination that McGee violated his parole.

2. Whether McGee’s failure to request the hearing officer to direct the production of the police report or an adjournment to obtain it, waived his right to raise that issue on appeal.

Holding

1. Yes, because the statutory presumption concerning possession of firearms in automobiles (Penal Law, § 265.15, subd 3), especially when coupled with the testimony of the arresting officers regarding McGee’s suspicious behavior, was sufficient to support the hearing officer’s determination.

2. Yes, because in view of McGee’s failure to request the hearing officer to direct that Police Officer Boorman produce his crime report or that the hearing be adjourned for that purpose, the question McGee wished to raise in that regard was not preserved for review.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the statutory presumption of firearm possession in an automobile, combined with the officers’ testimony about McGee’s suspicious movements, provided sufficient evidence to support the parole violation determination. The court emphasized that McGee bent forward beneath his seat and then leaned over towards the passenger after being signaled to pull over, strengthening the inference of possession. The court explicitly stated that the hearing officer’s decision did not rely on hearsay evidence, thus avoiding any issues related to the admissibility of such evidence under Morrissey v. Brewer. Furthermore, the Court emphasized a procedural default: because McGee failed to request the production of the police report or an adjournment to obtain it during the hearing, he waived his right to raise that issue on appeal. The court reasoned that parties must preserve issues for review by raising them at the appropriate time in the lower proceedings. The court noted that McGee did not apply for relief regarding the “notes or memorandum” referred to in a letter, further supporting the waiver. This case highlights the importance of timely raising evidentiary objections and requests for document production at administrative hearings to preserve those issues for appellate review.