People v Wilson
2013 NY Slip Op 04632 [107 AD3d 919]
June 19, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 31, 2013


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Anthony G. Wilson, Appellant.

[*1]Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Laurette D. Mulry of counsel), forappellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Rosalind C. Gray of counsel),for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Weber, J.), rendered December 4, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the second degreeand imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly denied the defendant's request to conduct a Fryehearing (see Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 [DC Cir 1923]), with respect to alatent fingerprint comparison identifying him as a perpetrator in the charged crime. NewYork courts evaluate the admissibility of expert testimony under the Frye test(see id.; People v Wernick, 89 NY2d 111 [1996]), pursuant to whichsuch testimony must be based on principles that are generally accepted in the relevantscientific community (seePeople v LeGrand, 8 NY3d 449 [2007]; People v Wernick, 89 NY2d111 [1996]; People v Wesley, 83 NY2d 417 [1994]). A "court need not hold aFrye hearing where it can rely upon previous rulings in other court proceedingsas an aid in determining the admissibility of the proffered testimony" (People vLeGrand, 8 NY3d at 458). Given the longstanding acceptance of fingerprintevidence by New York courts (see e.g. People v Roach, 215 NY 592 [1915]; People v Burnell, 89 AD3d1118, 1121-1122 [2011]; People v Wofford, 66 AD3d 1404, 1404 [2009]; Peoplev Garcia, 299 AD2d 493, 493 [2002]), the County Court properly determined that aFrye hearing was not necessary here.

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


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.