Evidence Macro Draft (Do Not Delete) 8/25/2020 10:46 Pm
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EVIDENCE MACRO DRAFT (DO NOT DELETE) 8/25/2020 10:46 PM EVIDENCE Michael J. Hutter† TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 358 I. PROCEDURAL CONCERNS ........................................................ 359 A. Judicial Control of the Trial Court .................................. 359 B. Continuance .................................................................... 361 C. Revisiting Evidence Rulings............................................. 362 II. EVIDENTIARY SHORTCUTS ....................................................... 367 A. Presumptions .................................................................. 367 B. Res Ipsa Loquitur ............................................................ 370 C. Noseworthy ..................................................................... 373 D. Missing Witness Adverse Inference .................................. 376 E. Spoliation Adverse Inference ........................................... 379 III. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS .................................................... 383 A. Habit ............................................................................... 383 B. Character Evidence ......................................................... 387 C. Molineux ......................................................................... 388 IV. AUTHENTICATION ................................................................... 389 A. Digital Images ................................................................. 389 B. Production of Material in Discovery................................ 389 V. WITNESSES ............................................................................. 392 A. Dead Man’s Statute ......................................................... 392 B. Examination .................................................................... 393 C. Refreshing Recollection ................................................... 395 D. Opinion ........................................................................... 395 E. Impeachment by Criminal Conviction .............................. 397 VI. HEARSAY ............................................................................... 399 A. Admission........................................................................ 399 B. Excited Utterance ............................................................ 400 C. Past Recollection Recorded ............................................. 402 D. Business Records ............................................................. 405 E. Declarations Against Interest .......................................... 408 VII. EXPERT TESTIMONY ................................................................ 409 A. Qualifications .................................................................. 409 B. Bases ............................................................................... 414 C. Frye ................................................................................ 416 VIII. PRIVILEGES............................................................................. 417 EVIDENCE MACRO DRAFT (DO NOT DELETE) 8/25/2020 10:46 PM 358 Syracuse Law Review [Vol. 70:357 A. Attorney-Client ................................................................ 417 B. Material Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation ............... 419 C. Physician-Patient ............................................................ 421 INTRODUCTION This annual Survey will proceed through the traditional evidence categories for a review of those cases decided and legislation enacted during the Survey year that are of particular interest. It covers decisions by the New York Court of Appeals, the four Appellate Division departments, a decision of a Supreme Court judge, and two new statutes addressing specific evidence matters. Perhaps the most significant development on the evidence landscape is not a judicial decision or statute but the publication on the New York State Uniform Court System website of the “Guide to New York Evidence” (“Guide”).1 The Guide consists of a compilation of New York’s existing rules of evidence, both common law and statutory, written in Code Style–a rule in statutory format, followed by a Note which sets forth the source, meaning, and nuances of the Rule. To the extent practicable, the language of each Rule adheres to controlling decisional law, especially from the Court of Appeals, and current statutory language. While the Guide’s articles parallel the organization of the Federal Rules of Evidence in large part, it does not utilize the language of a Federal Evidence Rule except when that language has been adopted in New York decisional law.2 The Committee’s goal in the creation of the Guide is the creation of a “single, definitive compilation of New York’s law of evidence. Creating an accessible, easy-to-use guide for judges and lawyers will save research time, promote uniformity in applying the law, avoid erroneous rulings † Michael J. Hutter is a Professor of Law at Albany Law School and is Special Counsel to Powers & Santola, LLP. He has been serving as the Reporter for the New York State Advisory Committee on Evidence since its establishment in August 2016. He also authors a bimonthly evidence column for the New York Law Journal, which discusses recent evidence developments in New York state and federal courts. 1. N.Y. UNIFIED CT. SYS. GUIDE TO N.Y. EVIDENCE COMM., https://www.nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence (last visited Apr. 6, 2020). 2. William C. Donnino, New York’s Evidence Guide: The Court System’s ‘Best Kept Secret,’ N.Y.L.J. (Sept. 10, 2019), https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/09/10/new-yorks-evidence-guide-the-court- systems-best-kept-secret/. The layout and format of the Guide are more fully discussed in this article. EVIDENCE MACRO DRAFT (DO NOT DELETE) 8/25/2020 10:46 PM 2020] Evidence 359 and improve the quality of legal proceedings.”3 In this connection, it is notable that the Guide was cited during the Survey year in four Appellate Division opinions, in support of their respective holdings.4 The Guide is the product of an Advisory Committee established by Chief Judge Janet DiFiore.5 The Committee, co-chaired by former Court of Appeals judge Susan Read and former Nassau County Supreme Court judge William C. Donnini, is comprised of 15 current or former state court judges and a Reporter, all of whom were appointed by Chief Judge DiFiore.6 The Committee will regularly update the Guide, adding additional rules and revisions of existing rules made necessary by judicial decisions and legislative enactments. I. PROCEDURAL CONCERNS A. Judicial Control of the Trial Court The Court of Appeals has stated on several occasions that “neither the nature of our adversary system nor the constitutional requirement of a fair trial preclude a trial court from assuming an active role in the truth- seeking process.”7 Indeed, the Court has emphasized that the trial court may often assume a vital role by its clarification of confusing testimony and facilitation of the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial.8 3. Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, The State of Our Judiciary 2017, 12 (Feb. 22, 2017), http://www.nycourts.gov/CTAPPS /news/SOJ-2017.pdf. 4. See Caminiti v. Extell W. 57th St. LLC, 166 A.D.3d 440, 440, 88 N.Y.S.3d 13, 15 (1st Dep’t 2019) (citing Guide to N.Y. Evidence Rule 8.11 (Statement Against Penal or Pecuniary Interest)); People v. Reed, 169 A.D.3d 573, 573, 95 N.Y.S.3d 81, 83 (1st Dep’t 2019) (citing Guide to N.Y. Evidence Rule 8.41 (State of Mind)); People v. Figueroa, 171 A.D.3d 549, 550, 98 N.Y.S.3d 165, 166 (1st Dep’t 2019) (citing Guide to N.Y. Evidence Rule 8.29 (Present Sense Impression)); People v. Pascuzzi, 173 A.D.3d 1367, 1375, 1377, 102 N.Y.S.3d 778, 787, 789 (3d Dep’t 2019) (citing Guide to N.Y. Evidence Rules 7.01 (3) (Opinion of Expert Witness), 8.00(1) (Definition of Hearsay), and 8.13 (1)(a) (Declaration of Future Intent)). See also Billok v. Union Carbide Corp., 170 A.D. 1388, 1391, 96 N.Y.S.3d 714, 718 (3d Dep’t 2019) (Lynch & Pritzker, J.J., dissenting) (citing Guide to N.Y. Evidence Rule 8.33 (Prior Inconsistent Statement)). 5. See Joel Stashenko, Advisory Panel to Compile Guide to NY Evidence Law, 256 N.Y.L.J. 1 (2016). 6. Id. The author serves as the Reporter. 7. See People v. Jamison, 47 N.Y.2d 882, 883, 393 N.E.2d 467, 468, 419 N.Y.S.2d 472, 473 (1979); see generally People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 945, 374 N.E.2d 1243, 1244, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892, 893 (1978); People v. DeJesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519, 523, 369 N.E.2d 752, 755, 399 N.Y.S.2d 196, 198–99 (1977); see also People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 57, 422 N.E.2d 556, 564, 439 N.Y.S.2d 896, 903 (1981). 8. See People v. Gonzales, 38 N.Y.2d 208, 210, 341 N.E.2d 822, 823, 379 N.Y.S. 397, 398 (1975); People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 76, 286 N.E.2d 265, 267, 334 N.Y.S.2d 885, 889 (1972) (citing People v. Mendez, 3 N.Y.2d 120, 121, 143 N.E.2d 806, 807, 164 N.Y.S.2d 401, 402 (1957)). EVIDENCE MACRO DRAFT (DO NOT DELETE) 8/25/2020 10:46 PM 360 Syracuse Law Review [Vol. 70:357 However, the Court cautioned the trial court that intervening in a trial may not take on “the function or appearance of an advocate.”9 When that situation occurs, there arise significant risks of prejudicial unfairness which may render the trial unfair.10 Whether the line was crossed is the subject of two Appellate Division Second Department decisions.11 They are instructive to the bench and bar as to when judicial interference in the trial process will be deemed to have