|
Wrongly Convicted Database Record
|
Charge: |
Criminal Contempt |
Sentence: |
|
Years Imprisoned: |
|
Year Crime: |
2016 |
Year Convicted: |
2017 |
Year Cleared: |
2019 |
U.S. State or Country of Crime: |
New York |
County or Region of Crime: |
Queens |
City of Crime: |
New York City |
Result: |
Judicially Exonerated |
Summary of Case: |
"Mark Smith was wrongly convicted on December 13, 2017 of second-degree criminal contempt for violating a temporary no-contact Order in Queens County, New York on March 23, 2016. Smith's ex-girlfriend obtained a temporary no-contact Order in February 2016 based on her allegation he tried to put sugar into her car's gas tank -- although she had no proof any sugar had in fact been put into her gas tank or that he had attempted to do so. Smith's prosecution was based on the allegation that at about 8:20 am on March 23, 2016 Smith violated the temporary no-contact Order by driving his car alongside her and attempting to speak with her as she was walking on Jamaica Avenue in Queens to the train station. At the time Smith lived in Virginia. She took about a photo and about a ten second video on her phone before she said Smith drove away. During his non-jury trial the prosecution introduced the woman's video and photo into evidence. Smith testified he had not driven near his ex-girlfriend or tried to talk with her on March 23, 2016. He also testified the Nissan Altima in the video was not his because it had a tinted back window and his Nissan Altima's back window isn't tinted. The judge found Smith guilty and imposed sentence. Smith appealed. On November 22, 2019 the New York Supreme Court Appellate Term, Second Department ruled Smith's conviction was against the weight of the trial evidence and ordered dismissal of the charges. The Court cited significant evidence undermining the woman's credibility. It's ruling states: "The 10-second video from the complainant's cell phone began with a dark gray Nissan Altima about a quarter of a block behind where the complainant was filming, and on the opposite side of the four-lane, two-way road. It was driven past the complainant. In light of her own video, the complainant retracted her previous testimony and conceded that, in fact, defendant did not pull up alongside her. The date/time/location stamp from the complainant's cell phone showed that a photograph was taken at 8:21 a.m. on March 23, 2016 in Yonkers, NY Yet, the prosecution proffered no evidence that the time and date stamps were correct, while the location stamp was not. Thus, either the photograph admitted into evidence was taken by the complainant in Yonkers, not Queens, or the stamp pertained to a photograph different from the one admitted into evidence by the prosecution. Either way, the date/time/location stamp calls the complainant's veracity into question, particularly in light of her forced retraction of the self-serving claim that defendant pulled up and drove alongside her. Also casting doubt upon the People's proof is what is absent from the photograph and video, namely, defendant and the license plate. All that is visible in the picture was a dark gray Nissan Altima, which is not an uncommon vehicle. Additionally, and contrary to the complainant's testimony that, when she began videotaping defendant, he first was "alongside" her and then drove forward away from her, the car at the start of the video was approximately a quarter of a block behind her. The complainant never testified about defendant driving his car backwards, and no other trial evidence accounts for the car being some distance behind the complainant when she began videotaping. In light of the inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, and the doubt created by the People's own physical evidence as to whether the complainant's photograph and video actually captured defendant and his car, the prosecution did not meet its burden of proving defendant's guilt of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. ... Accordingly, the judgment convicting defendant of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree is reversed and the accusatory instrument is dismissed." [People v Smith (Mark) 2019 NY Slip Op 51886(U) (NY Supreme Ct., App Term, Second Dept, 11-22-2019]" |
Conviction Caused By: |
|
Innocence Proved By: |
"On November 22, 2019 the New York Supreme Court Appellate Term, Second Department ruled Smith's conviction was against the weight of the trial evidence and ordered dismissal of the charges." |
Defendant Aided By: |
|
Compensation Awarded: |
|
Was Perpetrator Identified? |
|
Age When Imprisoned: |
|
Age When Released: |
|
Sex: |
Male |
Skin/Ethnicity: |
White |
Information Source 1: |
"People v Smith (Mark) 2019 NY Slip Op 51886(U) (NY Supreme Ct., App Term, Second Dept, 11-22-2019 (Reversing conviction based on being against the weight of the evidence.)" |
Information Location 1: |
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-term-second-department/2019/2019-ny-slip-op-51886-u.html |
Information Source 2: |
|
Information Location 2: |
|
Information Source 3: |
|
Information Location 3: |
|
Information Source 4: |
|
Information Location 4: |
|
Information Source 5: |
|
Information Location 5: |
|
Book About Case: |
|
Book Information: |
|
Book About Case (2): |
|
Book Information (2): |
|
Movie About Case: |
|
Comments About Case: |
Innocents Database Created and Maintained by Hans Sherrer innocents@forejustice.org