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.
IN RE: The STATE of New York, Petitioner–Respondent, v. JOHN, S., Respondent–Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel Conviser, J.), entered on or about August 4, 2011, which, upon a jury verdict that respondent suffers from a mental abnormality, determined that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly ordered the unsealing of records related to three rapes and two robberies for which respondent was indicted in 1968, although respondent's conviction of one count of rape and one count of robbery was ultimately overturned on the ground that he was incompetent at the time he pleaded guilty (see Suggs v. LaVallee, 570 F.2d 1092 [2d Cir1978], cert denied 439 U.S. 915 [1978] ). Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08(c) provides, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” the State is entitled to access to “all records and reports relating to the respondent's commission or alleged commission of a sex offense” (emphasis added). Contrary to respondent's contention, this provision supersedes CPL 160.50, which requires that the record of a criminal proceeding that terminated in favor of the accused be sealed (see Matter of State of New York v. Zimmer, 63 AD3d 1563 [4th Dept 2009] ).
The court properly permitted the State's experts to rely on hearsay statements in the unsealed documents in forming their opinions and to testify as to the content of those documents, subject to certain restrictions, on the ground that the out-of-court documents were “of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion” (see People v. Goldstein, 6 NY3d 119, 124 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted], cert denied 547 U.S. 1159 [2006] ). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determination that the disclosed hearsay facts' probative value to the jury in evaluating the experts' opinions substantially outweighed their prejudicial effect (see id. at 126–127).
The jury's verdict that respondent suffers from a mental abnormality is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v. Tejeda, 73 N.Y.2d 958 [1989] ) and is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007] ).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 14, 2013
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)