Appellate court upholds Steuben County drug case, comments on DA actions

A New York State Appellate Court on Friday rejected an appeal filed by attorneys representing Carmen Doty, 58, of Hornell. She had been convicted in 2015 in Steuben County of criminal possession and sale of a controlled substance, 5th degree. Doty argued that facts were misrepresented and the punishment was unduly harsh. She had been sentenced to serve three years and six months in state prison. Doty is currently housed at the Albion Correctional Facility. Her parole hearing is scheduled for next month. However, in its two page decision, the Court did comment on certain actions of the District Attorneys Office during the trial - 

Although we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence, we nonetheless feel compelled to comment on the manner in which the prosecution presented this case to the jury. The

prosecutor, in the direct examination of both the law enforcement witnesses and the confidential informant, purposely emphasized the purported “controlled” nature of the purchase by eliciting testimony regarding law enforcement’s search of the confidential informant and

her vehicle before and after the alleged sale. It was established on cross-examination of the confidential informant, however, that the informant had lived in the same household with defendant for at least a month before the sale occurred and thus had unfettered access thereto, rendering any control by law enforcement illusory. Although on redirect examination the prosecutor did not challenge the

informant’s testimony that she resided with defendant, on summation the prosecutor continued to rely on the purported controlled nature of the purchase. The prosecutor also elicited law enforcement testimony regarding the confidential informant’s actions inside the house,

despite the fact that the officers could not have seen those actions, and that testimony was not corroborated by the audio surveillance that purportedly recorded the transaction between defendant and the

informant. Such conduct warrants a reminder that prosecutors have a

duty to “ ‘deal fairly with the accused and be candid with the

courts’ ” (People v Colon, 13 NY3d 343, 349 [2009], rearg denied 14NY3d 750 [2010], quoting People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1, 7 [1993]).
---
You can read the entire decision HERE.