PEOPLE v. HURDLE (2008)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward HURDLE, Defendant–Appellant.

4560, 4250 /74

Decided: November 18, 2008

SAXE, J.P., NARDELLI, MOSKOWITZ, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, JJ.

Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Harold V. Ferguson, Jr. of counsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Frank Glaser of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.), entered on or about January 12, 2007, which denied defendant's CPL 440.30(1–a) motion for DNA testing, unanimously affirmed.

Even construing defendant's “reply” affidavit to be a supplementary motion for an order directing the People to locate additional evidence containing DNA, and, if located, to perform forensic DNA testing on that evidence, that motion was without merit. If DNA was present at all the possible crime scene locations posited by defendant, and if testing revealed that the DNA was that of the codefendant but not that of defendant, these results would not have created a reasonable probability of a different verdict (see People v. Pitts, 4 N.Y.3d 303, 311, 795 N.Y.S.2d 151, 828 N.E.2d 67 [2005] ), because they would still be consistent with the trial evidence and the People's trial theory as to the roles played by each perpetrator.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network