People v. Husband

NEW YORK COUNTY
Criminal Practice

New York Law Journal

   |0 Comments

Judge Robert Mandelbaum

Defendant husband pleaded guilty to theft of services and was sentenced to time served. Under the new Executive Law §995-c(3)(b)(iii), which became effective seven days before husband's plea, his conviction rendered him a designated offender obligated to provide a DNA sample which was to be collected by a court officer. However, a review of husband's criminal history revealed that a DNA sample was previously collected, thus his DNA profile was already on file in the DNA databank. Therefore, the court determined that collection of an additional sample was unnecessary. It noted because multiple copies of the same offender's DNA profile uploaded to the databank did not provide any additional information beyond that already obtained by a previously added sample, requiring a court to order duplicative samples would lead to "absurd and unreasonable results." The court stated the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) construed the statute as requiring only a single DNA sample from each eligible offender, despite how many additional eligible offenses were committed to avoid duplication and added expense, the court ruled this agency's interpretation was entitled to deference.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202580551828

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.