People v. MAHER (KENNETH)
89 N.Y.2d 456, 654 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 677 N.E.2d 728 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The hearsay exception allowing admission of an unavailable witness's out-of-court statements, when the defendant wrongfully caused the witness's unavailability, applies only if the prosecution proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's misconduct was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to prevent the witness from testifying.
Facts:
- Kenneth Maher and Ann Kotel were involved in an intimate relationship and lived together until an argument in April 1990.
- Following the argument, on April 24 and 26, Maher physically assaulted Kotel, causing her to contact the police and move out of their shared apartment.
- On April 30, Maher hid in a closet in the former apartment, ambushed Kotel, handcuffed himself to her, and threatened her with a pistol, stating, 'talk to me and I won’t kill you.'
- After the April 30 incident, Kotel filed a criminal complaint against Maher for menacing and unlawful imprisonment.
- On June 3, 1990, Maher dressed in black, armed himself with a sawed-off shotgun, and hid near Kotel's new apartment.
- Maher waited for a visitor to leave, cut the telephone wires to the building, and used a baseball bat to forcibly enter Kotel's apartment.
- When Kotel attempted to flee to a neighbor's apartment, Maher pursued her, forced her back into her own apartment, and shot her three times, killing her.
Procedural Posture:
- The People prosecuted Kenneth Maher in a New York trial court for intentional murder, felony murder, and criminal contempt.
- Prior to trial, the prosecution moved to introduce hearsay statements made by the victim, Ann Kotel, concerning Maher's prior violent acts.
- The trial court ruled that the victim's statements were admissible under the hearsay exception for a witness made unavailable by the defendant's misconduct.
- A jury found Maher guilty of all charges.
- Maher, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court's decision.
- Maher, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the hearsay exception for a witness made unavailable by a defendant's wrongful conduct apply in a homicide case to admit the victim's prior statements, where there is no evidence that the defendant's motive for the killing was to prevent the victim from testifying?
Opinions:
Majority - Levine, J.
No. The hearsay exception for a witness made unavailable by a defendant's misconduct does not apply unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to prevent that witness from testifying. The exception, established in People v. Geraci, is a narrow rule of necessity designed to preserve the integrity of the adversary process by deterring witness tampering, not a broad exception based on the evidence's reliability. To apply this exception in a homicide case merely because the defendant killed the witness, without any evidence of a motive to prevent testimony, would be an unwarranted expansion. Such an application would swallow the traditional dying declaration exception and improperly require the trial court to decide the ultimate issue of the case—whether the defendant caused the victim's death—in a preliminary hearing. Although admitting the victim's statements was an error, the court found the error harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of Maher's planning and intent, which negated his defenses of lack of intent and extreme emotional disturbance.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the application of the 'forfeiture by wrongdoing' hearsay exception, particularly in homicide cases. It establishes that the defendant's act of causing the witness's unavailability is not enough; the prosecution must also prove the defendant's specific intent to silence the witness. This holding protects a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by preventing the automatic admission of a victim's statements in the very case charging the defendant with their murder. It reinforces New York's narrow approach to hearsay exceptions and requires future courts to conduct a motive-specific inquiry before invoking this rule.
Unlock the full brief for People v. MAHER (KENNETH)