TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Tyson

The People of the State of New York v. James Tyson

People v. Tyson, 209 A.D.2d 354 (1994)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 29, 1994
Citations
209 A.D.2d 354618 N.Y.S.2d 7961994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11807

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered July 29,1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously held in abeyance, application for the expenditure requested by defendant to retain an independent court-ap *355 pointed spectrographic expert to conduct voice identification analysis granted, and the matter remanded for a preliminary hearing to determine the admissibility of voice spectrographic evidence in the event the spectrographic expert reaches an exculpatory result.

It was an abuse of discretion to deny defendant’s request for a reasonable expenditure to test whether a voice on a tape offered in evidence, in which defendant allegedly admitted the crime, was in fact defendant’s (see, Johnson v Harris, 682 F2d 49, 50-51, cert denied 459 US 1041 ). Defendant established extraordinary circumstances justifying compensation for the test (County Law § 722-c; see, People v Gallow, 171 AD2d 1061, 1062 , lv denied 77 NY2d 995 ), the results of which could have severely damaged the victim’s credibility (compare, People v Williams, 160 AD2d 754 , affd 77 NY2d 949 ). A preliminary hearing must then be held to determine the scientific reliability of the test should the expert conclude that the voice on the tape was not defendant’s (see, People v Jeter, 80 NY2d 818, 821 ). Of course, the expert must, in the first instance supervise the creation of the defendant’s voice exemplar. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1996: 11998: 22005: 119962026peak 1998 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tyson v. Keane991 F. Supp. 314 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
  2. Moore v. State889 A.2d 325 (Md. 2005)
  3. James Tyson v. John P. Keane, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility159 F.3d 732 (2d Cir. 1998)
  4. People v. Tyson227 A.D.2d 322 (1996)

Most recent

  1. Moore v. State889 A.2d 325 (Md. 2005)
  2. James Tyson v. John P. Keane, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility159 F.3d 732 (2d Cir. 1998)
  3. Tyson v. Keane991 F. Supp. 314 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
  4. People v. Tyson227 A.D.2d 322 (1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Jeter, 600 N.E.2d 214 (N.Y. 1992) 18
People v. Gallow, 171 A.D.2d 1061 (1991) 18
People v. Williams, 160 A.D.2d 754 (1990) 4
People v. Williams, 573 N.E.2d 573 (N.Y. 1991) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list