151 A.D.3d 1548
N.Y. App. Div.2017Background
- Defendant was convicted in 1995 of first‑degree kidnapping for the 1994 disappearance of Heidi Allen; victim never found. Defendant’s brother was tried separately and acquitted; defendant’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2013–2014 new witnesses came forward: Tonya Priest reported a 2006 statement by James Steen implicating Steen, Roger Breckenridge, and Michael Bohrer; a recorded call between Priest and Jennifer Wescott suggested corroborating admissions; other witnesses offered post‑trial statements attributing admissions to the three men. William Pierce also gave new eyewitness testimony identifying a bearded man (later thought to be Steen) at the abduction scene and a van he said was not the brother’s van.
- Defense also discovered materials showing the victim had been a police confidential informant (Cl file) that had been misplaced and later found; defense contended the People suppressed this Brady material at trial.
- County Court held a CPL 440.10 hearing and denied the motion to vacate on Brady and newly discovered evidence grounds; this appeal followed. The court found credibility issues and excluded most post‑trial statements as inadmissible hearsay not falling within the declarations‑against‑penal‑interest exception.
- Majority affirmed denial: held defense failed to prove suppression, the third‑party admissions were inadmissible or unreliable, Pierce’s eyewitness testimony was not credible, and the newly discovered evidence would not probably change the verdict. A dissent would have granted a new trial, finding Pierce credible and some declarations admissible.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Thibodeau’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady suppression (failure to disclose victim’s Cl file) | Records and Cl file were disclosed to defense before trial; no suppression. | Cl materials were not provided to defendant’s trial counsel and would have aided defense. | Affirmed: court could credit prosecutor’s testimony that Cl materials were disclosed; defendant failed to show suppression. |
| Newly discovered evidence (CPL 440.10[1][g]) | Post‑trial statements and witness accounts are inadmissible hearsay or unreliable and thus would not probably change the verdict. | New witness statements (Priest, Wescott, others) and Pierce’s eyewitness account are newly discovered, material, noncumulative, and would probably produce a different result. | Affirmed: hearing court’s credibility findings and admissibility rulings supported denial; evidence would not probably change the result. |
| Declaration‑against‑penal‑interest hearsay exception | The alleged admissions lack sufficient indicia of reliability, detail, or independent corroboration to fall within the exception. | Many out‑of‑court admissions by Steen/Breckenridge/Bohrer (and Wescott’s recorded statements) are declarations against penal interest and supported by independent corroboration (van descriptions, scrap/Canada leads, cadaver dogs). | Affirmed: most statements were either not sufficiently self‑inculpatory, lacked competent knowledge, or lacked independent corroboration; Wescott’s recorded statements were properly treated as unreliable hearsay. |
| Actual innocence claim | If newly discovered evidence fails, actual innocence claim likewise fails; no separate relief. | Newly discovered evidence establishes actual innocence or at least warrants a new trial. | Affirmed: court implicitly rejected actual innocence because newly discovered evidence standard was not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (constitutional concerns may warrant relaxing hearsay rules when statements bear persuasive assurances of trustworthiness)
- People v. Brensic, 70 N.Y.2d 9 (1987) (elements and reliability requirement for declarations against penal interest)
- People v. DiPippo, 27 N.Y.3d 127 (2016) (application of declarations‑against‑penal‑interest exception; corroboration standard)
- People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154 (1978) (independent corroboration required to admit exculpatory declarations; ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ standard when statements exculpate defendant)
- People v. Soto, 26 N.Y.3d 455 (2015) (more lenient standard for corroboration where declaration exculpates the accused)
- People v. Backus, 129 A.D.3d 1621 (2015) (standards for relief on newly discovered evidence under CPL 440.10)