People v. Causer

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before MARSH
• Citation: People v. Causer, 351 N.Y.S.2d 236, 43 A.D.2d 899 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)
• Decision Date: 17 January 1974
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Homer J. CAUSER, Appellant.

Page 236

351 N.Y.S.2d 236

43 A.D.2d 899

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Homer J. CAUSER, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Jan. 17, 1974.

David A. Shults, Hornell, for appellant.

John J. Finnerty, Bath, for respondent.

Before MARSH, J.P., and MOULE, CARDAMONE and SIMONS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM.

In affirming this judgment of conviction we deem it necessary to repeat the often reiterated admonition that a prosecutor in summation must not make himself an unsworn witness to support his case by his veracity and official position (Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314; People v. Lovello, 1 N.Y.2d 436, 439, 154 N.Y.S.2d 8, 9, 136 N.E.2d 483, 484; People v. Castelo, 24 A.D.2d 827). The reason why such conduct is uniformly condemned is because a public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer representing the State and presumed to act not to obtain a conviction but impartially in the interest only of justice (People v. Fielding, 158 N.Y. 542, 547, 53 N.E. 497, 498). While the prosecutor's conduct in this case was uncalled for and improper, as he himself recognized and as evidenced by his apology, we agree with the Trial Court that...