Opinion ID: 2080614
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: People v Anthony Barnwell

Text: On June 15, 1985, at about 2:00 A.M., a man who sneaked into an unlocked and unoccupied van accosted a 38-year-old female as she was driving. The man assaulted, sodomized and repeatedly raped the victim in the back of the van. After assaulting her, he left the victim in the van. She returned home and called the police. When the police arrived, the victim recounted the ordeal and described her attacker. After making her report to the police, the victim went to an area hospital for treatment. A rape kit was prepared during the hospital visit. On or about July 15, 1985, the police stopped Barnwell in the area where the rape occurred. On July 16, 1985, the police placed Barnwell's photograph in a photo array and showed the array to the victim. She identified Barnwell as the man who had raped her. Barnwell was arrested two days later. Approximately eight months later, on February 24, 1986, the victim identified Barnwell, in a police-arranged lineup, as the man who raped her. At trial, the People's case consisted primarily of identification testimony by the victim, who was the only witness to the crime. Barnwell relied on misidentification as his defense. On February 20, 1987, a jury convicted Barnwell of rape in the first degree (two counts) (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]), sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [1]), robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]), assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [6]) and grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [5]). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 7½ to 15 years for rape and sodomy, 3½ to 7 years for robbery and assault and 2 to 4 years for grand larceny. The Appellate Division affirmed ( People v Barnwell, 155 AD2d 886 [4th Dept 1989]) and a Judge of this Court denied leave to appeal (75 NY2d 810 [1990]). On September 20, 2000, approximately 10 years after Barnwell's direct appeal was final, and more than six years after the enactment of CPL 440.30 (1-a), Barnwell, while in prison, filed a pro se motion pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a) for DNA testing on hairs, semen and a cigarette butt recovered in connection with his prosecution. Barnwell alleged in his motion that the evidence established that he and the victim were unknown to each other before the crime, that a question of identity was raised at trial, and that there was a reasonable probability that had DNA evidence been admitted at trial, the verdict would have been more favorable to him. In response, the People argued that a due diligence standard applied, and that Barnwell failed to meet it by filing an untimely motionsix years after the enactment of CPL 440.30 (1-a) and 13 years after his conviction. The People also claimed that DNA testing was impossible, relying on a hearsay affirmation stating that [a]ccording to an employee of the Property Clerk's office, the rape kit had been destroyed in accordance with the [Police] Department's policy. On December 20, 2000, Supreme Court denied Barnwell's motion for an order directing DNA testing without a hearing. Given that the prosecution's case at trial consisted primarily of identification testimony by the victim, the fact that there were no other witnesses to the crime, and the fact that Barnwell and the victim were unknown to each other before the incident, the court indicated that this case presents the type of case where DNA testing would make a difference if conducted at this point in time. However, the court noted that the problem in this case is that the evidence originally obtained and containing the potential DNA evidence to be tested no longer exists. On April 30, 2004, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that under Appellate Division precedent it is incumbent upon a defendant to show that the evidence to be tested still exists and is available in quantities sufficient to make testing feasible at this late date. (6 AD3d 1147, 1147 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted].) The Court stated, [f]urther, there is no need for a hearing to inquire into the destruction of the evidence because the People were under no obligation to preserve the evidence after defendant's direct appeals were exhausted in 1990, more than 10 years prior to the instant motion. ( Id. at 1147-1148.) A Judge of this Court granted the defendant leave to appeal. We now reverse and remit this case to Supreme Court for further proceedings as set forth below.