Garcia v. LeFevre, 64 N.Y.2d 1001 (1985)
An inmate has a right to receive a reason for the exclusion of a witness from a prison disciplinary hearing when the hearing officer determines the witness’s presence will threaten institutional safety or correctional goals, as required by 7 NYCRR 254.5(b).
Summary
Carlos Garcia, an inmate, was charged with violating disciplinary rules. At his disciplinary hearing, he requested a witness, Juan Gomez, who was present during the incident. The hearing officer interviewed Gomez outside Garcia’s presence and played a recording of the interview for Garcia. The hearing officer sustained the charges. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s confirmation of the Commissioner’s determination, holding that Garcia was entitled to a reason for the exclusion of his witness from the disciplinary hearing as per 7 NYCRR 254.5(b), which was not provided. The Court emphasized that the record lacked any determination or factual support for finding that the witness’s presence would jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals.
Facts
Carlos Garcia, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility, was charged with violating disciplinary rules. At the disciplinary hearing, Garcia denied the charges and requested a witness, inmate Juan Gomez, who was with him during the incident. The hearing officer advised Garcia that Gomez would be interviewed outside of Garcia’s presence, and a recording of the interview would be played for Garcia. Gomez’s account varied from Garcia’s. Garcia was not given a reason for Gomez’s exclusion from the hearing. The charges against Garcia were sustained, resulting in penalties.
Procedural History
Following an unsuccessful administrative review, Garcia initiated an Article 78 proceeding. The Appellate Division confirmed the Commissioner of Corrections’ determination and dismissed Garcia’s petition. Garcia appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commissioner of Correctional Services violated 7 NYCRR 254.5(b) by failing to provide Garcia with a reason for excluding his requested witness, Juan Gomez, from the disciplinary hearing.
Holding
Yes, because 7 NYCRR 254.5(b) grants an inmate the right to receive a reason for the exclusion of a witness from a disciplinary hearing when the hearing officer determines that the witness’s presence will threaten institutional safety or correctional goals, and no such reason was provided to Garcia.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court focused on the requirements of 7 NYCRR 254.5(b), which states that a witness shall be allowed to testify in the presence of the inmate unless the hearing officer determines that doing so will jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals. The Court emphasized that the regulation requires a "determination" by the hearing officer supported by factual evidence. Because Garcia was given no reason for the exclusion, and the record lacked any indication of such a determination or factual support for it, the Commissioner failed to comply with his own regulations. The Court noted that questions on the hearing record sheet regarding the presence of the witness during the interview and the provision of a reason for denial were unanswered. The Court stated that, "Inasmuch as a hearing officer must ‘determine’ that a witness’ presence will threaten institutional safety or correctional goals prior to the exclusion of the witness from the hearing, section 254.5 (b) accords petitioner the right to receive a reason for the exclusion of his witness from the disciplinary hearing." The Court also clarified that Garcia was not required to object to the procedure, as there was no evidence of a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights. The Court found it unnecessary to address the other issues raised by Garcia, given its determination on the witness exclusion issue.