What's happening
The Michael Sandy Act limits the admissibility of evidence showing a defendant and hate crime victim share the same protected category, unless a court finds it relevant and just.
Why it matters
Narrows the use of a common defense tactic. The bill would prevent defendants in hate crime cases from automatically using evidence that they share the same protected characteristic (like race, religion, or sexual orientation) as the victim to argue they couldn't have been motivated by bias, unless the court finds it truly relevant.
Places more responsibility on judges. Judges must now consider—outside the jury’s presence—whether such evidence is necessary and just, and must put their reasoning on the record, increasing transparency and judicial accountability.
Aims to reduce jury confusion and bias. By limiting when this type of evidence can be shown, the law seeks to prevent misleading implications that sharing a protected trait means bias is impossible, which can wrongly sway juries and undermine hate crime prosecutions.
Reflects evolving understanding of hate crimes. The law recognizes that people can commit hate crimes against those who share their identity, and aims to ensure courts and juries focus on the motive and facts rather than assumptions about identity.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Limit Hate Crime Defenses
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
2 Co-sponsors
History
- Referred to codes
- Referred to codes
Full text
1 pageUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
1484
2019-2020 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
January 15, 2019
Introduced by Sens. HOYLMAN, SERRANO -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Codes
AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to enacting the Michael Sandy act
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Michael Sandy act".
§ 2. The criminal procedure law is amended by adding a new section 60.77 to read as follows: § 60.77 Rules of evidence; admissibility of evidence of defendant and
victim falling under the same protected category in hate crime
cases.
Evidence of defendant having the same race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, sexual orientation, or other category, defined in article four hundred eightyfive of the penal law, of the victim may not be admitted in a prosecution for any offense, or an attempt to commit an offense, defined in article four hundred eighty-five of the penal law, unless such evidence is determined by the court to be relevant and admissible in the interests of justice, after an offer of proof by the proponent of such evidence outside the hearing of the jury, or such hearing as the court may require, and a statement by the court of its findings of fact essential to its determination.
§ 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD07340-01-9
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
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.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.