Justice Facility Dogs in New York
Haley Vanderhoof
New York State Coordinator
Justice Facility Dogs US
These agencies have professional handlers working with certified facility dogs in New York.
Children’s Home of Poughkeepsie – 3 dogs (ECAD)
Dutchess County District Attorney, Poughkeepsie (ECAD)
NYPD Employee Assistance Unit – 3 dogs (PBB)
Ontario County DA, Canandaigua (ECAD)
Suffolk County District Attorney, Hauppauge (CCI)
The Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse, Poughkeepsie (ECAD)
Victims Assistance Center of Jefferson County, Watertown (CCI)
Westchester County DA, White Plains (CCI)
Dr. David Crenshaw and facility dog Ace, trained by ECAD
Appellate Court Decision
People v. Tohom (2013)
109 A.D.3d 253, 969 N.Y.S.2d 123 (2013)
Full text of the opinion here
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, July 10, 2013.
Leave to appeal denied by New York Court of Appeals, April 10, 2014.
Nature of case:
Victor Tohom was charged with two counts of sexual offenses. This was based on multiple acts of sexual conduct with his daughter over a four-year period (2006 to 2010). The daughter was born in 1995.
Procedure in the trial court:
At a pre-trial hearing, the court heard testimony from a social worker who had been providing therapy to the victim. She testified that the victim had been diagnosed with PTSD resulting from sexual abuse. During therapy sessions, the victim did not want to discuss the abuse and showed anxiety. When Rose, the facility dog, was present, the victim showed less anxiety and was more verbal. Rose was trained to put her head on a person’s lap when the person showed anxiety.
The court ruled the victim’s trial testimony was likely to cause severe stress, which necessitated procedures to protect her well-being. The court, therefore, allowed Rosie to sit with the victim while she testified. During the testimony, the victim initially petted Rosie. After that, Rosie was no longer visible.
Jury Instructions:
“During the testimony of [J.] she will be accompanied by a companion dog. The decision to allow this was one the court made and you may not speculate in any way as to why that decision was made. You must not draw any inference either favorably or negatively from either side because of the dog’s presence. You must not permit sympathy for any party to enter into your considerations as you listen to the testimony, and this is especially so with an outside factor such as a companion dog permitted to be present in the courtroom. Each witness’s testimony must be evaluated based upon the instructions I gave you during my charge and on nothing more.”
Appellate decision:
A New York statute requires judges to “be sensitive to the psychological and emotional stress a child witness may undergo when testifying.” New York Executive Law § 642-a. Although the victim in this case was 15 years old at the time of trial, she was still a “child witness.” Consequently, this statute provided authority for the use of a “comfort dog” at trial. The statute did not require any finding of “necessity” or “compelling need.”
Even apart from the statute, a trial judge is “empowered to control the proceedings in whatever manner may be consistent with the demands of decorum and due process.” Rosie may have engendered some sympathy for the victim. There was, however, no proof that this sympathy was significantly greater than the normal response to a child’s testimony about sexual abuse. The trial judge specifically instructed the jury not to permit sympathy to enter into its considerations.
Nor did the presence of Rosie interfere with the defendant’s right of confrontation. The defendant claimed that Rosie conveyed the impression that the victim was being truthful. Contrary to this claim, a dog does not have the ability to discern truth from falsehood.
ADI Accredited Organizations
The following organizations place facility dogs in the state of New York. Please visit their websites to find out more about each organization.
ADW – Assistance Dogs of the West