People v. Bell
| Decision Date | 19 November 1975 |
| Citation | 341 N.E.2d 246,38 N.Y.2d 116,378 N.Y.S.2d 686 |
| Parties | , 341 N.E.2d 246 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Richard BELL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Maurice H. Nadjari, Deputy Atty. Gen., Special State Prosecutor (Allen G. Swan, Bennett L. Gershman) and Barry M. Fallick, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Patrick M. Wall, New York City, for respondent.
Two New York City policemen, defendant Richard Bell and one Francis Reilly, were charged with conspiracy to steal more than four pounds of cocaine from the occupants of a Manhattan hotel room, as well as other related crimes. Following a jury trial in the Extraordinary Special and Trial Term of the Supreme Court, New York County, defendant and Reilly were convicted of attempted possession of a dangerous drug in the first degree (Penal Law, §§ 110.00, 220.23, repealed L.1973, ch. 276), burglary in the first degree (Penal Law, § 140.30) and attempted grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law, §§ 110.00, 155.35). Shortly thereafter, Reilly died in an unrelated automobile accident.
Concluding that the totality of errors at the trial were prejudicial as a matter of law, the Appellate Division reversed Bell's conviction and ordered a new trial. By leave of a Justice of that court, the Special State Prosecutor appeals.
The principal issue presented is whether the charge to the jury was so prejudicial to the defense as to warrant reversal of defendant's conviction.
The People's case rested upon the testimony of Gilberto Reyes, a convicted felon and an unaddicted drug pusher, and upon tape recordings of conversations between Reyes, the defendants and certain undercover officers. Reyes testified that he met Reilly in 1970 and that, for the next three years, Reilly periodically extorted money and drugs from him under the threat of arrest and prosecution. He recalled seeing Bell with Reilly on one of those occasions.
On March 7, 1973, unbeknown to Reilly and Bell, Reyes was arrested and charged with possessing five eighths of a kilogram of cocaine, a class A felony. Thereafter, the Special State Prosecutor contacted Reyes and offered to recommend that he be given a sentence of probation in exchange for a guilty plea, on the condition that Reyes co-operate in the arrest and prosecution of his 'tormentors'. Reyes agreed and, on March 20, he was released on bail.
Two weeks later, working in conjunction with the Special State Prosecutor, Reyes contacted Reilly and, in a surreptitiously tape-recorded conversation, informed Reilly that two kilograms of cocaine and $9,000 in cash were in the hands of drug dealers staying in room 418 of a downtown Manhattan hotel. Without clearly committing himself to any action, Reilly agreed to meet with Reyes that evening. At this meeting which was not taped, Reilly stated, according to the trial testimony of Reyes, that he was going to 'hit the place' and promised to give Reyes an eighth of a kilogram of cocaine if the drugs and money were in the hotel room as Reyes claimed.
Meanwhile, one female and two male undercover police officers, posing as narcotics dealers, were stationed inside the hotel room, which was made to appear as the center of a drug-cutting operation. A plastic bag containing a kilogram of white powder was placed in an open suitcase on a bed, a similar bag was opened on a table and tinfoil packets, smalll plastic bags, measuring spoons, scales and other narcotics paraphernalia were strewn about. Also, secreted in the room was electronic recording apparatus.
Tape recordings were introduced at the trial. These recordings, amplified by the testimony of the undercover officers, show that at approximately 8:45 P.M. Reilly and Bell forcefully entered the room with their guns drawn. According to the recordings Reilly and Bell then proceeded to interrogate the occupants as to their identity and the source of their supplies. The two officers began to place all the evidence into a suitcase, save 'the cut stuff' which Reilly said he wanted to 'send into the lab'. Later, one of the undercover officers 'pleaded' with Reilly to release the female officer because 'she's my woman'; and Reilly refused to do so. Another undercover officer asked, 'Can't we talk?' and Bell answered, 'No'. Eventually, Bell told the occupants that he was taking them in and, then, both Reilly and Bell made a thorough search of the room. Shortly thereafter, Reilly left and was arrested by a police backup team outside the building. At the same time, a police support team posted inside the building burst into the room and arrested Bell.
Clearly, the recordings alone do not, as the Special Prosecutor would have us believe, independently support a finding that Bell was guilty as charged. As detailed, the recordings indicate only that Bell accompanied Reilly to the subject room and, at most, upon entry comported himself in an equivocatory manner. True, Bell never identified himself as a police officer, expressly informed the occupants they were under arrest or advised them of their rights, and was not Reilly's police partner or even working in the precinct to which either was assigned. Nevertheless, the recordings show that Bell refused a bribe, that he informed the occupants that he was taking them in and, further, that he made a thorough search of the room even though some drugs were found in plain view. It follows, therefore, that Reyes' testimony which connects Bell with Reilly on one occasion and which charges Reilly with having an illicit purpose for entering room 418 is crucial to establishing Bell's culpability.
The defense was based primarily upon showing Reyes to be incredible. After detailing for the jury Reyes' prior convictions, prior bad acts and self-interest in testifying and assisting the prosecution, the defense brought forth numerous inconsistencies in Reyes' testimony, successfully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nazario
...564 (1976); People v. Bell, 45 A.D.2d 362, 364, 357 N.Y.S.2d 539 (1st Dept.1974), (concurring opinion), aff'd., 38 N.Y.2d 116, 378 N.Y.S.2d 686, 341 N.E.2d 246 (1975). In 1976, the First Department refused to require the instruction that reasonable doubt is based on the evidence or lack of ......
-
People v. Martinez
...upon by the jury and eventually prove decisive’ " ( id. at 524, 399 N.Y.S.2d 196, 369 N.E.2d 752, quoting People v. Bell, 38 N.Y.2d 116, 120, 378 N.Y.S.2d 686, 341 N.E.2d 246 ). Indeed, "even proper questions from trial judges present significant risks of prejudicial unfairness, particularl......
-
People v. Thompson
... ... Williamson, 40 N.Y.2d 1073, 392 N.Y.S.2d 255, 360 N.E.2d 933 [1976]; People ... Page 426 ... v. Bell, 38 N.Y.2d 116, 120, 378 N.Y.S.2d 686, 341 N.E.2d 246 [1975]; People v. McLean, 172 A.D.2d 256, 257, 568 N.Y.S.2d 376 [1st Dept.1991]; People v. Brown, 129 A.D.2d 450, 451-452, 514 N.Y.S.2d 326 [1st Dept.1987]; People v. Hollis, 106 A.D.2d 462, 464, 482 N.Y.S.2d 557 [2d Dept.1984] ... ...
-
People v. Hollis
...does refer to the evidence, it must do so fairly and in an even-handed manner (People v. Williamson, supra; People v. Bell, 38 N.Y.2d 116, 378 N.Y.S.2d 686, 341 N.E.2d 246). Here, the court, after stating that it would not review the evidence, placed emphasis on the two salient points which......