NY appeals court reverses sexual assault convictions

A state appeals court has reversed sexual assault convictions and ordered a new trial because of improper testimony about one victim’s credibility.

Defendant Ronald Swartz was convicted in Albany in June 2022 before state Supreme Court Justice Richard McNally Jr. of two counts of predatory sexual assault against a child.

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Third Department, reversed the convictions and granted a new trial.

In 2019, Swartz was charged with two counts of predatory sexual assault against a child. He was accused of raping a 12-year-old female relative in 2008 and having sexual conduct with another 11-year-old relative multiple times between 2010 and 2012.

A judge denied a defense motion to sever the counts for trial.

Swartz was convicted as charged and sentenced to consecutive prison terms of 20 years to life.

In the appeal, Swartz’s appellate attorney argued that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence.

“We find that defendant’s convictions are supported by legally sufficient evidence. (Both victims) testified as to the discreet acts that defendant had engaged in and sufficiently identified the relevant time frames,” Justice L. Michael Mackey wrote for the appellate court.

“We find that such evidence is legally sufficient for a rational jury to have found that defendant committed the crimes charged,” he wrote.

Mackey also wrote that “the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence.”

But the court found merit in a defense claim that Swartz was deprived of a fair trial because a police officer and an investigator testified about the credibility of victim 2.

They testified that Victim 2’s version of events was more believable than the defendant’s.

“The testimony is equivalent to an opinion that the defendant is guilty, and the receipt of such testimony may not be condoned,” Mackey wrote.

“We are similarly persuaded by defendant’s claim that he was improperly denied the opportunity to impeach victim 2 about an alleged prior inconsistent statement given in an unrelated Family Court matter, in which victim 2 reportedly denied ever having been molested by defendant,” Mackey wrote.

When Swartz’s lawyer attempted to question victim 2 about that issue the judge instructed the lawyer to avoid that line of questioning.

“We conclude that it was error to preclude defendant from exercising his right to confront victim 2 about their prior statement; the court could have crafted limitations to prevent the disclosure of unduly prejudicial information,” upon such questioning,” Mackey wrote.

The prosecution’s case hinged on the jury’s assessment of the victims’ credibility, according to the decision.

“Accordingly, the cumulative effect of these two errors directly interfering with the jury’s credibility determination … cannot be deemed harmless,” Mackey wrote.

“We thus reverse and remit for a new trial,” he wrote.

Swartz’s appellate attorney also claimed the indictment should be dismissed on speedy trial grounds because the prosecution’s statement of trial readiness and certificate of compliance were invalid because they failed to comply with their discovery obligations under Criminal Procedure Law.

“We disagree,” Mackey wrote.

The Third Department also ordered that the counts in the indictment be severed if another trial is held.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035