Case Title: People v Ramsaran

Citation: 2017 NY Slip Op 05268

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2017-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
People v Ramsaran

2017 NY Slip Op 05268

Decided on June 29, 2017

Court of Appeals

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 29, 2017

No. 105 SSM 11

[*1]The People & c., Appellant,
vGanesh R. Ramsaran, Respondent.


Submitted by Michael J. Genute, for appellant.
Submitted by Cheryl F. Coleman, for respondent.


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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, 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. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur. Judge Feinman took no part.
Decided June 29, 2017