People v. Coffey
| Decision Date | 06 July 1961 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph COFFEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Alfred I. Rosner, New York City, for appellant.
H. Richard Uviller, New York City, of counsel (Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York City), for respondent.
Before BREITEL, J. P., and VALENTE, STEVENS, STEUER and BASTOW, JJ.
Defendant has been convicted of the crime of burglary in the third degree after a complete and fair trial. We are all in accord that his guilt was clearly established. Although he has raised numerous questions on this appeal, there is only one that merits discussion; and while there is dissent from the opinion of the majority that no error was involved, the dissent concedes that the error, in the light of the remaining testimony, was immaterial.
Briefly stated, the crime committed by defendant and another was the breaking of a display window of the store of Cartier's, a prominent jeweler, and taking of some 31 rings. It occurred just before 4 o'clock on the morning of June 25, 1960. The sole eyewitness to the taking was one Conrad Nilsson, a watchman for Cartier's, who was stationed within the store and saw the defendant through the window. The defendant escaped and was not apprehended until some time later.
Nilsson's identification of the defendant at the trial was challenged and he was extensively cross-examined on the subject. The tenor of the cross-examination was that Nilsson did not see and could not have identified the defendant at the time, and that his identification in court must have been the result of a fabrication made up sometime in the interval between the act and the trial. In fact, this purpose was expressly avowed by defendant's counsel. Such an attack gives the People the right to refute the claim by showing a consistent attitude in regard to the testimony challenged. Such an attitude can be shown by independent witnesses (People v. Singer, 300 N.Y. 120, 89 N.E.2d 710). Of course, such testimony is not primary proof and only goes to bolster the credibility of the identifying witness. This was made perfectly clear in the charge of the learned court and no question in regard to it can be raised.
The nature of this sustaining evidence is, however, novel, and the novelty, rather than any departure from accepted principles, is what poses the question. A detective who was a competent artist was called...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Coffey
...the time of the seizing of the precious stones and was convicted of burglary, third degree (affirmed by the Appellate Division, 13 A.D.2d 410, 217 N.Y.S.2d 176). Although Coffey's conviction came before the Supreme Court's decision in Mapp v. Ohio (367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 108......
-
UNITED STATES EX REL. COFFEY v. Follette
...than six nor more than ten years on a third degree burglary charge. On direct appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, 13 A.D.2d 410, 217 N.Y.S.2d 176 (1st Dep't 1961), and the Court of Appeals withheld determination of the appeal while petitioner was permitted to assert a claim under Mapp ......
-
People v. Coffey
...conviction in the Court of General Sessions of burglary in the third degree has been affirmed by the Appellate Division, 13 A.D.2d 410, 217 N.Y.S.2d 176, and his appeal is here by The charge was that at 5 o'clock on the morning of June 25, 1960 he broke a display window in a Manhattan jewel......
-
People v. Jennings
...830, 70 N.Y.S.2d 511). The same rule applies to a sketch drawn by a police artist from details supplied by a victim (People v. Coffey, 13 A.D.2d 410, 217 N.Y.S.2d 176, affd. 11 N.Y.2d 142, 227 N.Y.S.2d 412, 182 N.E.2d 92). The composite picture in this case is vulnerable to the same exclusi......