BILL NUMBER:  S281

 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
prosecutors to pursue perpetrators who select their victims because of
the victim's real or perceived race, color, origin, ancestry, gender,
              

religion, 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
characteristics 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.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.