People v. Morales, 89 N.Y.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Morales, 89 N.Y.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
47 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of State of New York v. Ian I.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Contrary to the State’s contention, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the appellant’s pretrial motion which was to conduct a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [1923]) concerning the admissibility of the Hare PCL-R Instrument (hereinafter the PCL-R), which measures psychopathy, during the mental abnormality phase of the trial (see Matter of State of New York v Rosado, 25 Misc 3d 380 [2009]; see generally Matter of State of New York v Andrew O., 68 AD3d 1161, 1163 [2009], revd on other grounds 16 NY3d 841 [2011]; People v Morales, 227 AD2d 648, 649 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jackson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s request for a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [DC Cir 1923]) to determine the admissibility of expert testimony concerning DNA testing through the polymerase chain-reaction method, as such testing has gained general acceptance in the scientific community (see People v Fontanez, 278 AD2d 933, 935 [2000]; People v Qi Zhong Lin, 267 AD2d 256, 257 [1999]; People v Hall, 266 AD2d 160, 160-161 [1999]; People v Morales, 227 AD2d 648, 649 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jackson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s request for a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [DC Cir 1923]) to determine the admissibility of expert testimony concerning DNA testing through the polymerase chain-reaction method, as such testing has gained general acceptance in the scientific community (see People v Fontanez, 278 AD2d 933, 935 [2000]; People v Qi Zhong Lin, 267 AD2d 256, 257 [1999]; People v Hall, 266 AD2d 160, 160-161 [1999]; People v Morales, 227 AD2d 648, 649 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Watkins
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
We reject defendant’s contention that the evidence concerning DNA testing was not reliable (see generally People v Fontanez, 278 AD2d 933 , 935 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 862 [2001]; People v Hall, 266 AD2d 160 , 160-161 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 948 [2000]; People v Hamilton, 255 AD2d 693, 694 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1032 [1998]; People v Morales, 227 AD2d 648, 649 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 926 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hassett v. Long Island Railroad
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2004 · confidence medium
The Frye standard, in essence, states that expert testimony based on a scientific principle or a procedure is only admissible after the “principle or procedure has gained general acceptance in its specified field.” (People v Wesley, 83 NY2d 417, 422 [1994] [internal quotation marks omitted]; People v Morales, 227 AD2d 648, 649 [2d Dept 1996];. see People v Chambers, 6 AD3d 454 [2d Dept 2004].) In Morales , the State used a new method of DNA profiling to match defendant’s blood with blood samples taken from a getaway car used in the commission of a murder.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Milligan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Under the circumstances, and in light of the absence of overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v Calabria, supra; cf. People v Morales, 227 AD2d 648, 651 [1996]), we conclude that the defendant is entitled to a new trial.
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Afrika
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2001 · confidence medium
Expert proof of PCR profiling has been upheld in New York (People v Morales, 227 AD2d 648, 649-651 [2d Dept 1996]), even in the absence of a Frye hearing.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Shreck
Colo. · 2001 · confidence medium
Shea, 957 F.Supp. at 339 (holding that because PCR is based on sound scientific methods and has been generally accepted in both forensic and non-forensic settings, it readily satisfies Rule 702's reliability requirement); Harmon v. State, 908 P.2d 434, 440 (Alaska Ct.App.1995) (holding that under Frye, there seems to be little question concerning the scientific acceptance of the theory underlying PCR DNA typing), overruled on other grounds by, State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386, 391 (Alaska 1999), People v. Wright, 62 Cal.App.4th 31 , 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 246, 250 (1998) (holding that DNA evidence derived …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Stills
N.M. · 1998 · confidence medium
In fact, “PCR analysis has received overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community and the courts.” George Bundy Smith & Janet A. Gordon, The Admission of DNA Evidence in State and Federal Court, 65 Fordham L.Rev. 2465, 2470 (1997) (citing People v. Morales, 227 A.D.2d 648 , 643 N.Y.S.2d 217, 218-19 (1996)); see also U.S. v. Beasley, 102 F.3d 1440 , cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1856 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1997). {25} Defendant argues that the court committed reversible error when it ruled that results obtained using the PCR technique were admissible at trial.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Vao Sok
Mass. · 1997 · confidence medium
Ct. App. 1997) (no error in allowing jury to view DQA1, PM, and D1S80 test results, on charts, in jury room); People v. Morales, 227 A.D.2d 648, 649-650 (N.Y. 1996) (validating DQA1 and PM testing); Keen v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 795, 801-806 (1997) (testimony on DQA1 and PM tests admissible).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Reginald Pierre Beasley, United States of America v. Oliver Lawrence Beasley
8th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
State v. Hill, 257 Kan. 774 , 895 P.2d 1238, 1247 (1995); State v. Spencer, 663 So.2d 271, 275 (La.Ct.App.1995); People v. Lee, 212 Mich.App. 228 , 537 N.W.2d 233, 257-58 (1995), appeal denied, - Mich. -, 554 N.W.2d 12 (1996); State v. Hoff, 904 S.W.2d 56, 59 (Mo.Ct.App. 1995), transfer denied (Mo. Sept. 19, 1995); State v. Moore, 268 Mont. 20 , 885 P.2d 457, 474-75 (1994), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gollehon, 274 Mont. 116 , 906 P.2d 697, 701 (1995); People v. Morales, - A.D.2d -, 643 N.Y.S.2d 217, 218-19 (1996); State v. Lyons, 324 Or. 256 , 924 P.2d 802, 816 (1996); State v. Moe…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Lowe
D. Mass. · 1997 · confidence medium
Nov. 8, 1994) (unpublished) (allowing DQA test under Frye and Daubert); State v. Moore, 268 Mont. 20 , 885 P.2d 457, 467-68, 474-75 (1994) (allowing DQA test under Daubert); State v. Williams, 252 N.J.Super. 369 , 599 A.2d 960, 966-67 (Law Div.1991) (allowing DQA test under Frye); People v. Morales, — A.D.2d ---, 643 N.Y.S.2d 217, 218-19 (1996) (allowing DQA and Polymarker tests under Frye); State v. Penton, No. 9-91-25, 1993 WL 102507 , at *4-5 (Ohio Ct.App.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Harvey (2×)
N.J. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Morales, supra, 643 N.Y.S.2d at 218 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the complainant’s immediate identification of the defendant after directing police to his door, the gynecological medical evidence establishing that her physical condition was consistent with forcible rape, and the recovery of the defendant’s DNA from vaginal slides in the rape kit, the admission of the expert testimony, even if improper, was harmless error (see People v Story, supra; see also People v Morales, 227 AD2d 648 [1996]; People v Anderson, 260 AD2d 387 [1999]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Klinger
nycountyct · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
“The reliability of the PCR method [for nuclear DNA] has gained general acceptance in the scientific community.” (People v Qi Zhong Lin, 267 AD2d 256, 277 ; see also, People v Morales, 227 AD2d 648 ; People v Garcia, 190 AD2d 749 .) It is only in the typing where there is a slight divergence between these two types of DNA.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Roberto Morales
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 28, 1996.
✓ 89 N.Y.2d 926
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered September 7, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The[*649] appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant shot two men, killing one of them, in a drug-related dispute. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that the complainant had an independent source to identify the defendant in court. The complainant testified that before unlocking the front door of his apartment, he looked out the window and, in the porch light, saw the defendant and a man known to him as "G”. The complainant recognized the defendant because he had been to the apartment just one month before with "G”. When the door burst open, the complainant, with an unobstructed view, saw the defendant fire a gun at him. Thus, the complainant not only had a sufficient opportunity to view the defendant (Neil v Biggers, 409 US 188), but also had a prior familiarity with him (see, People v Thomas, 188 AD2d 569; see also, People v Tas, 51 NY2d 915).

The defendant, who suffered a gunshot wound to the thumb in the course of the crime, contends that the trial court erred in permitting the People to present evidence obtained by the polymerase-chain-reaction method (hereinafter PCR method) of DNA profiling. The test matched the defendant’s blood with blood samples taken from the getaway car owned by "G”, with a 1 in 2,234 probability of a random match. At the time of trial, evidence obtained through the restriction-fragment-length-polymorphism method (hereinafter RFLP method) of DNA profiling had been found to be admissible in New York (see, People v Wesley, 83 NY2d 417). However, the newer PCR method had not yet been the subject of an appellate decision in this State. The trial court therefore conducted a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013). We agree with the court that the hearing evidence sufficiently established that the reliability of the PCR method had gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community so as to permit the submission of evidence obtained by that method to a jury (see, People v Palumbo, 162 Misc 2d 650).

At the Frye hearing the People presented testimony from three highly qualified experts in the field of DNA testing, namely Dr. David Bing, Scientific Director of the Center for Blood Research Laboratories (hereinafter CBR Labs), which is affiliated with the Harvard Medical School where Bing is a member of the Department of Medicine; Dr. Robert Shaler, the Director of Forensic Biology for the Office of the Chief Medical[*650] Examiner for New York City; and Dr. Kenneth Kidd, a full professor at the Yale University School of Medicine’s Department of Genetics. Their testimony established that the PCR method had been validated by numerous peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature, was used in an increasing number of forensic laboratories throughout the United States and the world, and was widely accepted within the scientific community as reliable for forensic applications. The People also demonstrated that the PCR method was better suited than the RFLP method for forensic use since it was capable of testing smaller and degraded samples, usually the only type available at a crime scene.

CBR Labs performed the testing in this case using the HLA-DQ Alpha and the newer Amplitype PM or Polymarker variants of the PCR method. The hearing testimony showed that the two tests are based on the same scientific principles and have nearly identical methodologies and protocols, but use different primers and probes because they target different genetic loci. The HLA-DQ Alpha test targets one genetic locus while the Polymarker test targets six loci. Thus, any validation studies regarding the HLA-DQ Alpha test were applicable as well to the Polymarker test. Furthermore, Dr. Bing explained that the lack of published, peer-reviewed articles validating the Polymarker test in particular was due to the lengthy peer-review process and not to any discord in the scientific community as to its validity. Moreover, Polymarker testing had been validated by internal studies at CBR Labs and many of the other 25 individual labs known by Dr. Bing to be using that method.

Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s argument that the Polymarker variant of the PCR method was too new and untested to be considered reliable. While the defendant’s expert expressed that opinion at the hearing, he also testified that he had never used the Polymarker test kit, was unaware of any particular problems with it, and knew of no studies supporting his view. In any event, Frye requires only general, not unanimous, acceptance by the scientific community (see, People v Middleton, 54 NY2d 42).

We note, in addition, that there has been an overwhelming acceptance of PCR methodology in other States, many of which apply the Frye standard of reliability (see, People v Amundson, 48 Cal App 4th 788, 41 Cal Rptr 2d 127; Harmon v State, 908 P2d 434 [Alaska]; State v Johnson, 183 Ariz 623, 905 P2d 1002; State v Hill, 257 Kan 774, 895 P2d 1238; State v Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105; People v Lee, 212 Mich App 228,[*651] 537 NW2d 233; Seritt v State, 647 So 2d 1 [Ala]; State v Spencer, 663 So 2d 271 [La]; see also, State v Begley, 1996 WL 12152 [Tenn Ct of Crim Appeals, Jan. 11, 1996]; State v Williams, 252 NJ Super 369, 599 A2d 960; Redding v State, 464 SE2d 824 [Ga]; Campbell v State, 910 SW2d 475 [Tex]; Spencer v Commonwealth, 240 Va 78, 393 SE2d 609).

The defendant also seeks reversal based on Detective Woulfe’s rebuttal testimony that he arrested the defendant after the complainant identified him as the shooter. While this testimony improperly bolstered the complainant’s in-court identification in violation of People v Trowbridge (305 NY 471), the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969; People v Staley, 182 AD2d 846).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.