New York Law Review

Tag: Adverse Inference Instruction

  • People v. Viruet, 28 N.Y.3d 526 (2016): Adverse Inference Instruction for Lost Evidence

    People v. Viruet, 28 N.Y.3d 526 (2016)

    When the state loses evidence requested by the defendant, and that evidence is reasonably likely to be material, an adverse inference instruction is mandatory if requested.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the trial court erred by denying an adverse inference instruction after the police lost surveillance video of a shooting, which the defendant was charged with committing. The court held that the trial court should have given the instruction because the video was likely to contain material information. However, the court affirmed the conviction because the error was harmless given the strength of the evidence against the defendant, including eyewitness testimony and a confession.

    Facts

    The defendant was charged with second-degree murder after a shooting outside a nightclub. The incident occurred shortly after the defendant’s brother was assaulted. The police obtained surveillance video from the club, but the arresting officer lost the video. The defendant requested the video during discovery and sought an adverse inference instruction based on its absence. The trial court denied the instruction, finding insufficient evidence that the video would have been favorable to the defendant. The Appellate Division affirmed. The defendant appealed.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted the defendant of second-degree murder and weapons possession. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the trial court erred by declining to provide an adverse inference instruction to the jury regarding the missing surveillance video, which the defendant requested in discovery.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the lost video was reasonably likely to be of material importance to the case, the court erred by denying the adverse inference instruction.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court relied on the precedent set in People v. Handy, which established that when the State destroys evidence, the defendant is entitled to an adverse inference instruction if the evidence was requested, acted upon with due diligence, and was reasonably likely to be of material importance. Here, the court found that the defendant met those conditions. The video could have depicted key events such as the shooting and the positions of witnesses, making it potentially relevant. Even though the prosecution argued it did not intend to use the video, the court found it had an obligation to preserve evidence once the police collected it. Ultimately, the court held that the trial court should have given the instruction.

    The court then considered whether the error was harmless. Quoting People v. Crimmins, the court explained that “errors of law of nonconstitutional magnitude may be found harmless where ‘the proof of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming’ and where there is no ‘significant probability . . . that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error.’” The court found that overwhelming evidence supported the guilty verdict, including eyewitness accounts and a confession. As a result, the error was deemed harmless, and the conviction was upheld.

    Practical Implications

    This case reinforces the importance of preserving potentially relevant evidence, especially video footage, for the prosecution. It clarifies that if the prosecution loses requested evidence that might be helpful to the defendant, they could be forced to give the jury an adverse inference instruction. Defense attorneys can use this ruling to argue for adverse inference instructions when potentially exculpatory evidence is lost or destroyed by the State. This case emphasizes that it is not enough for the prosecution to claim they did not plan to use the evidence; they must still preserve it. When similar cases come before the court, this case should guide the decision on whether an adverse inference is warranted.

  • People v. Durant, 24 N.Y.3d 342 (2014): Adverse Inference Instruction Not Mandated by Failure to Record Interrogation

    24 N.Y.3d 342 (2014)

    A trial court is not automatically required to issue an adverse inference instruction to the jury solely because the police failed to electronically record a custodial interrogation.

    Summary

    In People v. Durant, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court must provide a jury with an adverse inference instruction when the police fail to record a custodial interrogation. The court held that no such mandatory instruction is required. The court reasoned that the failure to record an interrogation does not automatically trigger adverse inference rules applicable to situations like destruction of evidence or missing witnesses. The court emphasized that the police have no legal duty to record interrogations, and their failure to do so does not, in itself, indicate an attempt to conceal unfavorable evidence. The court acknowledged the benefits of recording but deferred to the legislature to determine whether to change the law regarding recording and adverse inference charges.

    Facts

    Everett Durant was arrested and charged with second-degree robbery. The victim, Emmett Hunter, reported being robbed and assaulted by Durant and a group of men. During interrogation at a police station without recording equipment, Durant initially claimed to have intervened in a fight before changing his story to implicate others in the assault, but denied taking Hunter’s property. At trial, the prosecution relied on the interrogating officer’s testimony and a written summary of Durant’s statement. The defense requested a permissive adverse inference instruction because the interrogation was not recorded, but the trial court denied the request. Durant was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed.

    Procedural History

    Durant was convicted of second-degree robbery in the trial court. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the conviction, rejecting the argument that the trial court was legally required to provide an adverse inference instruction based on the lack of an electronic recording. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court erred by refusing to provide the jury with an adverse inference instruction based solely on the police’s failure to electronically record the defendant’s custodial interrogation.

    Holding

    No, because there is no legal requirement for a trial court to issue an adverse inference instruction based solely on the failure to record a custodial interrogation.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals examined the common law regarding adverse inference instructions, which are typically used either as a penalty for the government’s violation of duties or to explain logical inferences about missing evidence. The court distinguished between situations where the government has a duty to preserve evidence (e.g., when evidence is destroyed) or to disclose information and those, like here, where no such duty exists. The court found no statutory or constitutional requirement for police to record interrogations, thus the failure to record did not warrant an adverse inference charge as a penalty for violating a duty. Furthermore, it distinguished the case from the “missing witness” scenario by finding the police’s decision to not record an interrogation does not suggest that they wished to avoid supplying unfavorable proof. As stated by the court, “the police do not already know that the recording is more likely to be unfavorable than it is to be favorable.” The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the instruction. Concurring opinion of Chief Judge Lippman emphasizes the importance of the electronic recording of interrogations in the current era and suggests that such instructions may be warranted as a matter of law in the future.

    Practical Implications

    This case clarifies that, in New York, there is no blanket rule requiring an adverse inference instruction based solely on the failure to record a custodial interrogation. This affects how defense attorneys approach such situations. They must provide specific reasons why an adverse instruction is warranted, even if it is not a mandatory element. This could mean focusing on specific circumstances or actions taken by the police that suggest evidence tampering, a violation of due process, or other improprieties that go beyond just the lack of recording. It also highlights the importance of legislative action in setting clear standards for electronic recording of interrogations.