24 N.Y.3d 450 (2014)
A trial court has the discretion to permit expert witness testimony via electronic appearance in Mental Hygiene Law proceedings, but only when exceptional circumstances require it.
Summary
In a case concerning the civil commitment of a sex offender under Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could allow an expert witness to testify via live, two-way videoconference. The Court held that while trial courts possess the inherent authority to permit such testimony, it should only be exercised when there are exceptional circumstances justifying the procedure. In this case, the Court found that allowing the witness to testify remotely without a proper showing of exceptional circumstances was an error. However, the Court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s decision because the error was deemed harmless, given the other overwhelming evidence presented.
Facts
Robert F. was subject to an Article 10 proceeding under New York’s Mental Hygiene Law, which allows for the civil commitment of sex offenders deemed likely to re-offend. During the dispositional hearing, an expert witness for the State, Dr. Peterson, testified regarding Robert F.’s risk of recidivism based on his scores on risk-assessment instruments. During the trial, Robert F. admitted that a victim in a prior sexual offense was a stranger to him. The State recalled Dr. Peterson on rebuttal to address the effect of this admission on her assessment. Over the respondent’s objection, the court permitted Dr. Peterson to testify via live, two-way videoconference because she could not appear in court on short notice. The trial court found that Robert F. was a dangerous sex offender and ordered his confinement.
Procedural History
The trial court, Supreme Court, found Robert F. to be a dangerous sex offender and ordered his commitment. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the trial court had the discretion to utilize live video testimony. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Supreme Court properly permitted an expert witness to testify via electronic appearance without a showing of exceptional circumstances.
Holding
1. Yes, because the trial court has the discretion to permit two-way, live video testimony, but only when exceptional circumstances so require, or when all parties consent.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals examined the trial court’s inherent powers and the absence of specific statutory prohibitions on electronic testimony in Mental Hygiene Law proceedings. The Court referenced its prior decision in *People v. Wrotten*, establishing that courts have the authority to adopt innovative procedures like electronic testimony. The Court reasoned that while the Legislature has primary authority to regulate court procedure, the courts have latitude to adopt procedures consistent with general practice. The Court distinguished between the circumstances in the current case and *Wrotten*, where the expert witness was unable to travel to New York due to health reasons. The court concluded that allowing the two-way, live video testimony of Dr. Peterson was within the discretion of the court, but it emphasized that it is an exceptional procedure to be used only in exceptional circumstances, and that the State did not provide proper justification for using it in the present case. The court ultimately determined that the error was harmless, as there was sufficient evidence to support the original decision.
Practical Implications
This case provides guidance on the use of electronic testimony in civil commitment proceedings. Attorneys must be prepared to demonstrate