Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph M. DE LORENZO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a bench trial of, inter alia, three counts each of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35[1] ) and rape in the third degree (§ 130.25[2] ) and one count each of sodomy in the first degree (former § 130.50[1] ) and menacing in the second degree (§ 120.14[1] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the results of the polygraph test administered to defendant. It is well established that “the reliability of the polygraph has not been demonstrated with sufficient certainty” for the results of such tests to be admissible in evidence (People v. Shedrick, 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 1018, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388, 489 N.E.2d 1290, rearg. denied 67 n.y.2d 758, 500 n.y.s.2d 1028, 490 N.E.2d 1234; see People v. Angelo, 88 N.Y.2d 217, 223, 644 N.Y.S.2d 460, 666 N.E.2d 1333; People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188; People v. Mastin, 261 A.D.2d 892, 894, 690 N.Y.S.2d 801, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1022, 697 N.Y.S.2d 581, 719 N.E.2d 942; see also Matter of Loren B. v. Heather A., 13 A.D.3d 998, 999-1000, 788 N.Y.S.2d 215, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 710, 797 N.Y.S.2d 816, 830 N.E.2d 1145). Also contrary to defendant's contention, the court properly refused to conduct a Frye hearing before determining that the results of the polygraph test were inadmissible, inasmuch as defendant failed to show that the scientific consensus concerning polygraph tests had recently changed (see People v. Weber, 40 A.D.3d 1267, 836 N.Y.S.2d 327; see generally Angelo, 88 N.Y.2d at 223, 644 N.Y.S.2d 460, 666 N.E.2d 1333). Finally, we reject defendant's contention that the court failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded and thus that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: November 09, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)