Legal Opinion

People v. Vargas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided October 9, 2012PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Defendant’s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People’s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. CrimminsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  2. Williams v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  3. People v. KennedyNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. People v. CratsleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. People v. BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 2009

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. People v. RiosAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
  2. People v. RaucciAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
  3. People v. CordovaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  4. McHenry v. BaderNew York Supreme Court · 2015
  5. People v. RaucciAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API