People v. Murphy
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
In establishing the appropriate risk level designation under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), the People bear the burden of proving the necessary facts by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Lawless, 44 AD3d 738 [2007]; People v Hardy, 42 AD3d 487 [2007]). The facts may be proved, inter alia, by reliable hearsay: “the court shall review . . . any relevant materials and evidence submitted by the sex offender and the district attorney and the recommendation and materials submitted by the board, and may consider reliable hearsay…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- People v. MingoNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
- People v. NoriegaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- People v. MitchellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- People v. BrightAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- People v. HardyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- People v. MabeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. HewittAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. DuartAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. GuzmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. JacksonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.