BILL NUMBER: S1484

SPONSOR: HOYLMAN
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to enacting the
Michael Sandy act

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

The goal of this bill is to prevent the defense from using the fact that
the offender is the same protected category as the victim to avoid hate
crime charges unless the court states it is absolutely necessary to
evaluating the case.

 
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:

Section 1 makes evidence of defendant and victim in a hate crime case
sharing the same protected category inadmissible unless the court finds
it to be essential to the understanding of the crime based on proof.

              

 
JUSTIFICATION:

Since its enactment in 2000, the hate crimes statute has enabled prose-
cutors to pursue perpetrators who select their victims because of the
victim's real or perceived race, color, origin, ancestry, gender, reli-
gion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation or who
commit offenses against their victims because of a belief or perception
regarding the above listed characteristics.  Unfortunately, the law is
inadequate to address situations in which evidence is presented before a
jury concerning a defendant's sharing one or more of the characteristics
with the victim.

This bill will create a procedural protection in hate crime trials that
could involve the presentation of evidence of the sharing of character-
istics between the defendant and the victim. In at least one high
profile case in which the victim was selected because of his sexual
orientation, the defendant exposed the jury to evidence that he shared
the same sexual orientation of the victim. This tactic was seemingly
used to instill in jurors' minds that a gay man could not commit a hate
crime against another gay man although the hate crimes statute pointedly
does not prevent the prosecution of a case where the perpetrator and the
victim share the same characteristic of which the victim was targeted.

The presentation of evidence of the shared characteristic is unduly
prejudicial and frustrates the purpose of the hate crimes statute.
Evidence suggests that the danger of undue prejudice is especially acute
where sexual orientation is concerned. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
despite recent social and legal developments the understanding of non-
heterosexual orientations is low, especially where complex psychological
and sociological issues are involved. Social science evidence suggests
that many perpetrators of anti-lesbian, anti-bisexual, or anti-gay
crimes may themselves be internally struggling with issues around their
own sexual orientation and that this inner turmoil may drive them to
select victims based on their real or perceived sexual orientation.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

S.281 of 2017-2018 (Hoylman): Died in Codes
A.11315 of 2017-2018 (Espinal):
S.64 of 2015-2016 (Hoylman): Died in Codes
A.4730 (Moya): Died in Codes
S.6370 of 2014 (Hoylman): Died in Codes
A.7549 of 2013-2014 (Moya):  Died in Codes

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately.