54 N.Y.2d 42 (1981)

Bite mark evidence is generally admissible in criminal cases if the reliability of the techniques employed is accepted by a majority of experts in the field, and the accepted techniques were employed by the experts in the specific case, without needing to establish scientific reliability in each individual case.

Summary

Middleton was convicted of manslaughter based, in part, on bite mark evidence. The New York Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of bite mark evidence as a means of identification. The court held that bite mark evidence is admissible if the techniques used are generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community. It emphasized that a unanimous endorsement is not required, and the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence without a preliminary hearing on the scientific principles, provided proper foundation evidence regarding the specific procedures used is presented.

Facts

Gladstone Scale, Middleton’s supervisor at Mount Sinai Hospital, was found dead in his office. An autopsy revealed five distinct bite marks on Scale’s back. Middleton was a suspect. The prosecution sought an order to examine Middleton’s mouth and create a cast of his teeth for comparison with the bite marks. Middleton’s attorney opposed the motion, but it was overruled, and the examination proceeded. Dr. Levine, a dentist associated with the chief medical examiner’s office, conducted the examination and created the cast.

Procedural History

Middleton was indicted after the bite mark evidence was presented to the Grand Jury. He moved to suppress statements he made to the District Attorney, but the motion was denied. At trial, Middleton argued for the suppression of the bite mark evidence, requested a hearing on the reliability of bite mark testimony, and moved to strike Dr. Levine’s testimony. The trial court denied these motions. Middleton was convicted of manslaughter. The Appellate Division affirmed, and Middleton appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to order the examination and casting of Middleton’s teeth.

2. Whether the order for examination was improper absent a showing of probable cause.

3. Whether the bite mark evidence should have been excluded because its reliability was not established.

Holding

1. Yes, because the Supreme Court has the authority to issue an order in furtherance of a Grand Jury investigation, even without an arrest or indictment.

2. No, because the defendant waived his Fourth Amendment objection by failing to properly raise it in a pre-trial suppression motion.

3. No, because the reliability of bite mark evidence is sufficiently established in the scientific community to make it admissible, provided foundation evidence regarding the specific procedures used is presented.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue the order for examination, citing CPL 10.10 and 10.30, which recognize the authority of a Supreme Court Justice to act as a local criminal court and the superior courts’ jurisdiction over Grand Jury proceedings. The court found that Middleton had waived his Fourth Amendment argument regarding probable cause by failing to make a timely motion to suppress the evidence on those grounds. The court emphasized that the purpose of CPL article 710 is to allow the People the opportunity to contest the claim of illegality by showing the information in the possession of the police at the time the evidence was obtained. Regarding the admissibility of bite mark evidence, the court stated, “[T]he test is not whether a particular procedure is unanimously indorsed by the scientific community, but whether it is generally acceptable as reliable.” The court noted that the techniques used in bite mark analysis (photography, dental molds, etc.) are accepted by a majority of experts in the field, citing various publications and cases from other jurisdictions. The court concluded that “[i]t was not error, therefore, for the Trial Judge, without a hearing concerning the scientific principles involved, to hold the evidence generally reliable.” It highlighted Dr. Levine’s testimony, who stated with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the bite wounds were inflicted by Middleton, finding no inconsistencies between the bite marks and Middleton’s teeth despite their unique characteristics.