## Facts

- A woman was robbed and raped at knifepoint by a stranger.
- Shortly after the assault, medical personnel collected anal and vaginal swabs; semen was recovered.
- The complainant selected the defendant’s photograph from an array and identified him in a lineup before trial.
- At trial, the complainant misidentified a courtroom spectator as the assailant; her prior lineup identification evidence was precluded under CPL 60.25 and 60.30.
- The prosecution’s main inculpatory proof was DNA profiling by an FBI forensic DNA expert comparing the swabs to known blood samples.
- The expert testified that multiple tested genetic loci from the swabs matched the defendant’s known sample and that the random-match probability was less than 1 in 500 million across Black, White, and Hispanic populations.
- Additional proof included testimony from an acquaintance placing the defendant near the crime area three days before the crime.
- A jury convicted the defendant of first-degree rape and first-degree robbery.

## Issues

1. Whether DNA profiling evidence, essentially standing alone after exclusion of eyewitness identification evidence, can constitute legally sufficient evidence to establish the defendant’s commission of rape and robbery.
2. Whether the prosecution’s circumstantial case met the standard that the hypothesis of guilt flows naturally from the proved facts and excludes to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

## Decision

- The court denied the defendant’s reserved motion for a trial order of dismissal under CPL 290.10.
- The court held that, on these facts, DNA evidence with an extremely low random-match probability could be legally sufficient circumstantial evidence of guilt.
- The court allowed the jury’s guilty verdicts for first-degree rape and first-degree robbery to stand.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is legally sufficient if, viewed as true, it establishes every element of the charged offense and the defendant’s commission of it.
- Circumstantial evidence is sufficient when the hypothesis of guilt flows naturally from the proved facts, is consistent with them, and excludes to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
- Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not require absolute scientific certainty; highly probative probabilistic evidence may satisfy the burden when innocent explanations are reasonably excluded.
- DNA match evidence may function like other strong forms of forensic circumstantial proof (e.g., fingerprints) when the circumstances do not support an innocent source explanation.

## Conclusion

The court held that DNA evidence with a highly discriminating statistical match, even without admissible eyewitness identification at trial, can alone provide legally sufficient circumstantial proof of guilt where the circumstances reasonably exclude an innocent explanation for the defendant’s DNA being present.


People v. Rush, 630 N.Y.S.2d 631 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995)