AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FRANK BAYLOR, Appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At trial, the People offered into evidence reports containing the results of DNA testing performed on samples collected from the complainants and the defendant. The DNA reports were offered through the testimony of an expert in forensic biology employed by the Medical Examiner's Office of the City of New York. The expert supervised other public employees who conducted the tests performed upon the samples, but he did not engage in all of the actual testing procedures.

The defendant's contention, inter alia, that the admission of the DNA evidence violated his Federal and State constitutional right to confront witnesses against him ( see Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36), is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v. Bones, 17 AD3d 689, lv denied 5 NY3d 826; People v. Mack, 14 AD3d 517). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, the DNA reports were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v. Bones, supra; People v. Antongiorgi, 242 AD2d 578).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. BAYLOR
(Jan 10, 2006)