People v. Shaver

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department reversed Nathan Shaver's convictions for three counts of first-degree sexual abuse and remitted for a new trial. The court held that County Court improperly denied Shaver's request for a brief adjournment to investigate a belatedly disclosed alibi-rebuttal witness, and that the error was not harmless. The court also addressed certain evidentiary issues in anticipation of retrial, including the admission of a campground photograph and bar video recordings.

Holdings

1. The evidence was legally sufficient to establish the sexual contact element involving the child victim and defendant's presence at the campground during the 2019 incidents.
2. The adult victim's testimony that she was asleep or intoxicated and unconscious when sexual contact began was legally sufficient to permit the jury to find that she was physically helpless and unable to consent.
3. The convictions were supported by the weight of the evidence because the jury was entitled to credit the victims' testimony and reject defendant's alibi despite credibility challenges and delayed reporting.
4. County Court acted within its discretion by permitting the People's belatedly disclosed rebuttal witness to testify because the record did not show that the delayed disclosure was willful or intended to obtain a strategic advantage.
5. When a trial court permits belatedly disclosed alibi-rebuttal testimony, CPL 250.20 requires it, upon application by either party, to grant an adjournment of no more than three days before the testimony is received.
6. The denial of the statutory adjournment was not harmless, and the error required reversal of all three convictions because there was a reasonable possibility that the rebuttal evidence meaningfully influenced the verdict on the 2018 count.
7. The campground photograph was properly admitted because it was relevant to show the adult victim's presence at the campsite and to corroborate testimony that defendant joined the family on camping trips.
8. The bar videos were properly admitted because the rebuttal witness authenticated them by testifying that she made them and that they accurately depicted what she observed; uncertainty caused by the re-recording process affected weight rather than admissibility.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the three first-degree sexual abuse convictions.
2. Whether the convictions were against the weight of the evidence.
3. Whether County Court properly permitted the People to call a belatedly disclosed alibi-rebuttal witness for good cause.
4. Whether County Court was required to grant defendant an adjournment of up to three days before allowing the belatedly disclosed rebuttal witness to testify.
5. Whether the denial of the adjournment was harmless and, if not, whether the error required reversal of all three jointly tried convictions under spillover analysis.
6. Whether, in anticipation of a new trial, a campground photograph was relevant and whether bar videos were adequately authenticated.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded