People v. Haggerty, 22 N.Y.3d 871 (2014)
The best evidence rule, which requires the production of an original writing when its contents are in dispute and sought to be proven, does not bar testimony when other evidence already presented sufficiently proves the fact at issue, rendering any error harmless.
Summary
John Haggerty was convicted of grand larceny and money laundering for defrauding Michael Bloomberg of $750,000 intended for a ballot security operation. Haggerty challenged his conviction, arguing that testimony about the source of the stolen funds violated the best evidence rule because the actual trust document was not introduced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that even if admitting the testimony was an error, it was harmless because ample other evidence already established Bloomberg’s ownership of the funds. The Court emphasized that the testimony in question was not so prejudicial as to deny Haggerty a fair trial, and the jury would have convicted him even without the contested testimony.
Facts
Michael Bloomberg, while running for reelection as Mayor of New York City in 2009, sought to fund a ballot security operation. John Haggerty, a campaign volunteer, offered to organize the operation. Bloomberg’s campaign transferred $1.2 million from Bloomberg’s revocable trust to the Independence Party, with $1.1 million earmarked for ballot security. Haggerty, through his company SEO, billed the Independence Party $750,000 for ballot security services but provided minimal coverage, using the funds to purchase his brother’s share of their childhood home. When questioned about the expenditures, Haggerty provided fabricated documentation.
Procedural History
Haggerty was indicted and prosecuted for grand larceny, money laundering, and falsifying business records. At trial, the prosecution introduced testimony from Bloomberg, his staff, and an Independence Party official regarding the transfer of funds. A financial investigator traced the funds to Haggerty’s purchase of the house. When the defense suggested the funds belonged to the trust, not Bloomberg personally, the prosecution called the trust’s draftsperson to testify that the trust funds belonged to Bloomberg, over a best evidence rule objection. The jury convicted Haggerty, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the admission of testimony regarding the ownership of funds without producing the original trust document violated the best evidence rule, thus warranting a new trial?
Holding
No, because even if admitting the testimony violated the best evidence rule, it was harmless error given the other evidence presented at trial that sufficiently proved Bloomberg’s ownership of the stolen funds.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court addressed Haggerty’s argument that testimony regarding the source of funds without producing the trust document violated the best evidence rule. The best evidence rule requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and sought to be proven. The Court found that even if Friday’s testimony should not have been admitted, the error was harmless because other evidence had already established Bloomberg’s ownership. Bloomberg himself, his campaign staff, and the Independence Party official testified about the funds transfer. Documentary evidence of the transfers was also introduced. The court cited People v. Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 (1975), stating there was no significant probability that the jury would have failed to convict, even without the challenged testimony. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the best evidence rule is to protect against fraud and perjury, but in this case, Bloomberg’s ownership was sufficiently established through other means.