People v. Carter
| Decision Date | 16 November 1976 |
| Citation | 358 N.E.2d 517,389 N.Y.S.2d 835,40 N.Y.2d 933 |
| Parties | , 358 N.E.2d 517 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Craig CARTER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Hillard Wiese and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (George P. McKeegan and Robert M. Pitler, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
Following several hours of deliberation, it was announced that the jury had reached a guilty verdict on all counts. Upon polling the jury, however, it was revealed that one juror, the foreman, had not voted a guilty verdict. The court informed the jury that they would be required to deliberate further since the verdict was unacceptable for lack of unanimity. Upon the foreman's inquiry concerning 'What could be done if one or a few jurors cannot be convinced', the court made the following remarks: Appropriate exception was taken to this supplemental charge. The jury retired to deliberate and, shortly thereafter, returned a guilty verdict which was reported as unanimous upon a polling of the jurors.
We conclude that the court's remarks were coercive and prejudicial, warranting a reversal of defendant's conviction (People v. Faber, 199 N.Y. 256, 259, 92 N.E. 674, 676; People v. Sheldon, 156 N.Y. 268, 285, 50 N.E. 840, 846; People v. Hill, 44 A.D.2d 813, 355 N.Y.S.2d 612; People v. Josey, 19 A.D.2d 660, 241 N.Y.S.2d 620). In People v. Faber (supra, p. 259, 92 N.E. p. 675), this court asserted that '(i)n arriving at a verdict the judge presiding at the court must not attempt to coerce or compel the jury to agree upon a particular verdict, or any verdict.' Despite this settled rule, the court here leveled a pointed threat to the jury, and in particular to the lone juror who was not convinced of the defendant's guilt, that they would be forced to continue their deliberations indefinitely and without any outside communication. In our view, this was error requiring a new trial.
In addition, we also conclude, as did the two Appellate Division dissenters, that error was committed in the Trial Judge's questioning of the chief defense witness and in the prosecutor's summation remarks. The Trial Judge engaged in prolonged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Martinez
..."appeared to display an inordinate amount of skepticism in the witness’ testimony which was crucial to the defense" ( People v. Carter, 40 N.Y.2d 933, 934, 389 N.Y.S.2d 835, 358 N.E.2d 517 ; see People v. Mendes, 3 N.Y.2d 120, 121, 164 N.Y.S.2d 401, 143 N.E.2d 806 ), and "generally created ......
-
People v. Morgan
...in exchange for her testimony ” (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals condemned similar comments by the prosecutor in People v. Carter, 40 N.Y.2d 933, 934–935, 389 N.Y.S.2d 835, 358 N.E.2d 517. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that reversal is warranted based on the pervasive and at ......
-
Plummer v. Rothwax
...at the risk of unjust verdicts (see People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 727, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299; People v. Carter, 40 N.Y.2d 933, 934, 389 N.Y.S.2d 835, 358 N.E.2d 517; People v. Faber, 199 N.Y. 256, 259, 92 N.E. 674; Arizona v. Washington, supra, 434 U.S. at p. 510, 98 S.Ct. at p......
-
People v. Casiano
...Attorney's office into the trial to downplay the severity 148 A.D.3d 1046of a past criminal charge he faced (see People v. Carter, 40 N.Y.2d 933, 934, 389 N.Y.S.2d 835, 358 N.E.2d 517 ; People v. Morgan, 111 A.D.3d 1254, 1256, 974 N.Y.S.2d 687 ). Further, the prosecutor denigrated the defen......