162 A.D.3d 25
N.Y. App. Div.2018Background
- In August 1991 a shooting left Rolando Neischer dead and Robert Crosson wounded; Crosson later identified Rosean Hargrove (then 17) and a 14‑year‑old co‑defendant as the shooters. The convictions rested essentially on Crosson’s identification; physical evidence (fingerprints/palm prints) did not match the defendants.
- Police recovered blood samples from the stolen car and bicycles, but those swabs were never tested at trial and later could not be located.
- Detectives Louis Scarcella and Steven Chmil handled investigatory steps including a photographic array and a lineup; testimony about who did what and the timing of identifications was inconsistent.
- Postconviction revelations showed Scarcella was implicated in misconduct in multiple other cases (e.g., Ranta, Hamilton, Hill), prompting a Kings County Conviction Integrity Unit review of many Scarcella cases.
- Hargrove moved under CPL 440.10(1)(g) for vacatur and a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (Scarcella’s pattern of procuring false IDs and loss/unavailability of blood evidence); the Supreme Court granted a new trial after a CPL 440 hearing.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, holding the hearing court reasonably found the new evidence could have created a probability of a more favorable verdict.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Hargrove’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the material before the court constituted "newly discovered evidence" under CPL 440.10(1)(g) warranting a new trial | Evidence of Scarcella’s misconduct in other cases and missing blood evidence were remote, cumulative, or inadmissible and therefore insufficient. | Evidence showing a pattern of Scarcella‑facilitated false identifications plus lost/unavailable blood swabs were new, material, not discoverable earlier, and likely to produce a different result. | Affirmed: court may grant relief if new evidence (1) discovered after trial, (2) not discoverable earlier with due diligence, and (3) creates a probability of a more favorable verdict; the hearing court’s factual finding satisfied CPL 440.10(1)(g). |
| Whether impeachment evidence of police misconduct is categorically insufficient because it is "merely impeaching" | Contends common‑law rule bars relief for evidence that only impeaches or contradicts trial testimony. | Argues impeachment of the sole ID witness and showing systematic police misconduct goes to the heart of the case and can create the required probability. | Held: "not merely impeaching" is not a strict statutory prerequisite; impeachment evidence can support a new trial when, in context, it would probably lead to a different result. |
| Whether the loss/unavailability of blood swabs warrants relief or supports the new‑trial finding | Asserts there is no proof bad‑faith destruction occurred and defendant was not precluded from seeking testing. | Emphasizes that untested/lost biological evidence was potentially exculpatory and its absence undermines prosecution’s case and credibility of the investigation. | Held: the missing/unaccounted‑for biological evidence is a significant contextual factor; combined with police‑misconduct evidence, it supports the hearing court’s conclusion on probability of a different verdict. |
| Whether the hearing court’s credibility findings about Detective Scarcella were supported by the record | Argues the trial record does not support the hearing court’s characterizations of Scarcella’s role and credibility. | Points to inconsistent testimony, documentary exhibits, and vacatur of other convictions implicating Scarcella to challenge his credibility. | Held: appellate court defers to hearing court credibility determinations; the record supported findings that Scarcella’s testimony was false/misleading and non‑cooperative. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rensing, 14 N.Y.2d 210 (Court of Appeals) (newly discovered evidence standard and focus on juror reaction to evidence)
- People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327 (Court of Appeals) (People’s burden at pretrial identification proceedings)
- People v. Berrios, 28 N.Y.2d 361 (Court of Appeals) (suppression where police testimony is not credible)
- People v. Salemi, 309 N.Y. 208 (Court of Appeals) (discussion of newly discovered evidence and historical development of the six‑factor test)
- People v. Jones, 24 N.Y.3d 623 (Court of Appeals) (discretionary nature of new‑trial motions)
- People v. Shilitano, 218 N.Y. 161 (Court of Appeals) (recantation/impeachment evidence not categorically excluded)
- People v. Rahming, 26 N.Y.2d 411 (Court of Appeals) (fruit of illegal arrest suppression principles)
- People v. Ianniello, 21 N.Y.2d 418 (Court of Appeals) (witness refusal to answer and credibility considerations)