The 2016-2017 term of the New York Court of Appeals in criminal law was a relatively quiet one in which the prosecution fared better than the defense.

'Brown'

In People v. Brown, 28 N.Y.3d 392 (2016), the Court decided a question that went unresolved two years ago in People v. Sibblies, 22 N.Y.3d 1174 (2014): If the People answer “ready” for trial off calendar and then are “not ready” at the next court appearance, do they bear the burden of showing that the statement of readiness was not illusory and therefore effective in stopping the speedy trial clock? The Brown majority held that a statement of readiness is “presumed … accurate and … a defendant who challenges such a statement must demonstrate that it is illusory.” The burden is on the defense. Writing separately, Judge Jenny Rivera disagreed, claiming that the majority's holding “turn[ed] the [§30.30] statute on its head.” She argued that the People should be charged with the time between the two statements “absent an explanation of how th[e] lapse in status [was] due to some exceptional fact or circumstance.”

Brown is the most significant speedy-trial decision in recent years. Had Judge Rivera's position prevailed, §30.30 dismissals would have increased, perhaps greatly. Take this example: Assume (1) the People answer ready off calendar today, and the case is next on in 30 days and (2) the People are not ready on the court date because the assigned ADA is on trial. The ADA's unavailability is not an “exceptional circumstance,” but nor is it reason to conclude that the off-calendar statement was a sham. Judge Rivera is correct, however, that the §30.30 statute often does more to encourage gamesmanship than speedy trials.

'Price'

People v. Price, 2017 N.Y. Slip. Op 05174 presented the Court its first opportunity to consider the authentication of Internet evidence, and the Court chose “to proceed with caution in a new and unsettled area of law.” Price was indicted for a gunpoint robbery of a milk delivery man. At trial, the People offered a “photograph that was found on the Internet,” which purportedly “depicted [Price] holding a handgun”—one that the victim testified looked “similar” to the gun used in the robbery. A detective testified that she found the photograph on the website “BlackPlanet.com” under a “public profile” with the user name “Price_OneofKind.” It was posted several months before the robbery. The individual in it, the detective testified, “looked similar” to Price.

That was all of the evidence linking Price to the site and the photograph. There was no reference to Price's full name on the profile page. Nor was any pedigree information offered to connect him to the page. And the detective could not say that the photograph was unaltered. On this record, the Court “assum[ed] without deciding” that a photograph could be authenticated by proof (1) that the website was “attributable to and controlled by the defendant” and (2) that the photograph was an accurate depiction of the page. Here, however, the authentication evidence was too “sparse” to meet that standard.