Case ID: ny3d_29/html/1070-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[79 NE3d 1120, 57 NYS3d 457]
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Ganesh R. Ramsaran, Respondent.
    Decided June 29, 2017
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Joseph A. McBride, District Attorney, Norwich (Michael J. Genute of counsel), for appellant.
    
      Cheryl F. Coleman, Albany, for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of issues raised, but not determined, on the appeal to that Court.

The People’s forensic expert gave statistical testimony regarding the likelihood (“1.661 quadrillion times more likely”) that defendant and his deceased wife, rather than two randomly selected individuals, were contributors to a DNA mixture profile drawn from a blood stain on defendant’s sweatshirt. The prosecutor, during his summation, summarized this testimony by telling the jury that the victim’s DNA was “on” defendant’s sweatshirt. Defense counsel’s failure to object to this characterization did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. The expert testimony regarding the “likelihood ratio” here contrasts with the testimony at issue in People v Wright (25 NY3d 769 [2015]), which “only indicated that defendant could not be excluded from the pool of male DNA contributors, and . . . provided no statistical comparison to measure the significance of those results” (Wright, 25 NY3d at 771). Nor did counsel’s other alleged errors of representation, either individually or collectively, deprive defendant of meaningful representation.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur; Judge Feinman taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Third Department, for consideration of issues raised but not determined on appeal to that Court, in a memorandum.