People v. Reaves
2025 NY Slip Op 05107
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2025Background
- Defendant Idrissa Reaves was convicted by jury of criminal facilitation in the second degree; murder in the second degree was charged but not convicted.
- The charges arose from a 2016 Brooklyn shooting; the shooter opened fire from a van while a gray Nissan driver waited and fled together.
- Authorities later learned the gray Nissan was driven by the defendant, who had followed the victim prior to the shooting.
- While awaiting trial at Rikers Island, Reaves and another person authored a rap song which he performed over recorded calls; the People sought to admit these calls and the rap song as evidence.
- The trial court admitted the rap song if a slang expert could interpret the lyrics, finding the lyrics beyond the ken of an average juror.
- The People offered Detective Investigator Kolawole Olosunde as the slang expert; defense argued he was unqualified and that the artistic nature of rap required special expertise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rap lyrics were admissible at all | People contend lyrics show defendant's knowledge/intent. | Defense argues lyrics are artistic expression and not reliable evidence. | Rap lyrics admissible only if properly qualified; here they were not. |
| Whether the investigator was qualified as an expert in slang to interpret rap lyrics | People rely on investigator's training to decode slang. | Investigator lacked sufficient skill/experience in rap-lyrics interpretation. | Investigator not qualified to render expert opinion on rap lyrics. |
| Whether admission of the rap lyrics violated due process by mirroring the People’s theory of the case | Expert interpretations aligned with the People’s theory of accomplice liability. | Interpretations were speculative and prejudicial. | Admission prejudicial; error not harmless; requires reversal. |
| Whether the error requires reversal of the conviction on criminal facilitation | Evidence supported guilt beyond reasonable doubt independent of song. | Impact of improper lyric interpretation tainted trial. | Judgment reversed and new trial ordered on count four. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Green, 92 AD3d 953 (2d Dept 2013) (rap lyrics may be admitted to show knowledge/intent when relevant)
- People v Green, 92 AD3d 956 (2d Dept 2013) (investigative testimony about lyrics deemed admissible under certain contexts)
- United States v Foster, 939 F.2d 445 (7th Cir 1991) (expert testimony on meaning of lyrics recognized in federal courts)
- United States v Jordan, 714 F. Supp. 3d 158 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (rap lyric relevance; caution against inferring criminality from artistry)
- People v Burt, 270 AD2d 516 (2d Dept 2000) (necessity of expert qualification for specialized testimony)
- People v Williams, 146 AD3d 410 (2d Dept 2017) (rap lyrics as evidence; jurisprudence on expert interpretation)