People v. Coffie

• Citation: 144 N.Y.S.3d 273,192 A.D.3d 1641
• Decision Date: 26 March 2021
• Docket Number: KA 15-01986,28
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Quran L. COFFIE, Defendant-Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

192 A.D.3d 1641
144 N.Y.S.3d 273

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Quran L. COFFIE, Defendant-Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)

28
KA 15-01986

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: March 26, 2021

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

192 A.D.3d 1641

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial is granted on count one of the indictment.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree ( Penal Law § 160.15 [4] ). In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of attempted murder in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]) and one count of attempted assault in the first degree (§§ 110.00, 120.10 [1]).

In appeal No. 1, we agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in failing to hold a Huntley hearing before the start of trial. "When [a] motion [to suppress evidence] is made before trial, the trial may not be commenced until determination of the motion" ( CPL 710.40 [3] ; see People v. Jackson , 221 A.D.2d 964, 964, 634 N.Y.S.2d 327 [4th Dept. 1995], lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 903, 641 N.Y.S.2d 232, 663 N.E.2d 1262 [1995] ; People v. Blowe , 130 A.D.2d 668, 670, 515 N.Y.S.2d 812 [2d Dept. 1987] ; see also Matter of Green v. DeMarco , 87 A.D.3d 15, 17-18, 925 N.Y.S.2d 762 [4th Dept. 2011] ). Here, defendant

144 N.Y.S.3d 275

moved to suppress his statements to the police on the ground that they were involuntarily made (see CPL 710.20 [3] ), but the court did not rule on the motion prior to trial and repeatedly refused to conduct a pretrial Huntley hearing, even after the People requested a Huntley hearing at the outset of the trial. Instead, the court granted the People's request for a Huntley hearing over defendant's objection after nine of the ten prosecution witnesses had already testified. Following that hearing, the court found the statements to be voluntary and thus admissible.

The error is not harmless. It is well established that, "unless the proof of the defendant's guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming, there is no occasion for consideration of

192 A.D.3d 1642

any doctrine of harmless error" ( People v. Crimmins , 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ). Here, the evidence was not overwhelming (cf. People v. Horn , 186 A.D.3d 1117, 1121, 129 N.Y.S.3d 604 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 973, 138 N.Y.S.3d 494, 162 N.E.3d 723 [2020] ). The central factual question in this case was identity. The evidence of identity was that defendant was apprehended coming out of a building located on the block towards which the culprit had been seen running, he fit the description of the culprit, and he was identified by three eyewitnesses after a showup procedure. On the other hand, defendant did not have in his possession the fruits of the crime or the firearm used in the crime, nor was he dressed like the culprit. Moreover, showup identification procedures are...