People v. Wilson

Jun 19, 2013
Versions:107 A.D.3d 919
967 N.Y.S.2d 756

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly denied the defendant‘s request to conduct a Frye hearing (see Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 [DC Cir 1923]), with respect to a latent fingerprint comparison identifying him as a perpetrator in the charged crime. New York courts evaluate the admissibility of expert testimony under the Frye test (see id.; People v Wernick, 89 NY2d 111 [1996]), pursuant to which such testimony must be based on principles that are generally accepted in the relevant scientific community (see People v LeGrand, 8 NY3d 449 [2007]; People v Wernick, 89 NY2d 111 [1996]; People v Wesley, 83 NY2d 417 [1994]). A “court need not hold a Frye hearing where it can rely upon previous rulings in other court proceedings as an aid in determining the admissibility of the proffered testimony” (People v LeGrand, 8 NY3d at 458). Given the longstanding acceptance of fingerprint evidence by New York courts (see e.g. People v Roach, 215 NY 592 [1915]; People v Burnell, 89 AD3d 1118, 1121-1122 [2011]; People v Wofford, 66 AD3d 1404, 1404 [2009]; People v Garcia, 299 AD2d 493, 493 [2002]), the County Court properly determined that a Frye hearing was not necessary here.

Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, since he did not demonstrate the necessity for the appointment of fingerprint experts on his behalf under County Law § 722-c, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his request to appoint such experts (see People v Moore, 125 AD2d 501 [1986]; see also People v Robinson, 70 AD3d 728, 728 [2010]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.