People v. Cook
| Decision Date | 30 September 1991 |
| Citation | 176 A.D.2d 341,574 N.Y.S.2d 777 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Richard COOK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Mark W. Zeno, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Victor Barall and William M. Harrington, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HARWOOD, J.P., and LAWRENCE, EIBER and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered May 30, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.
The complainant and her companion were robbed at gunpoint on a Brooklyn street while walking home at approximately 9 P.M., on January 23, 1988. The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with robbery in the first degree when the complainant identified him at a police lineup. The complainant's companion was unable to identify the defendant at the same lineup. At the trial, the complainant confirmed her identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. The defendant's wife testified in his behalf, and stated that he was at home with her and the rest of his family at the time of the robbery.
The trial court delivered a lengthy charge in which it instructed the jurors on the importance of harmonizing their views and avoiding emotions. In the midst of this charge, the court stated:
A Trial Judge may not "attempt to coerce or compel the jury to agree upon a particular verdict, or any verdict" (People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299, quoting People v. Faber, 199 N.Y. 256, 259, 92 N.E. 674; see also, People v. Page, 47 N.Y.2d 968, 970, 419 N.Y.S.2d 958, 393 N.E.2d 1031, cert. denied 444 U.S. 936, 100 S.Ct. 285, 62 L.Ed.2d 195). It is improper for a Trial Judge to "prod jurors through prejudicial innuendoes or coerce them with untoward pressure" to reach a verdict or a particular result (People v. Pagan, supra, 45 N.Y.2d at 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).
Under the circumstances of this one-witness identification case, where the jury was only able to reach a verdict after two days of deliberations and numerous readbacks of testimony, we find that the court's computer analogy and corresponding statement that "the verdict will be guilty" may have had a significant coercive effect on the jury. Mor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Edey
... ... Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299; People v. Bowen, 134 A.D.2d 356, 520 N.Y.S.2d 834; cf., People v. McGee, 76 N.Y.2d 764, 559 N.Y.S.2d 953, 559 N.E.2d 647; People v. Cook, 176 A.D.2d 341, 574 N.Y.S.2d 777) ... We have considered the defendant's contention that he was improperly sentenced to the maximum prison term permitted based upon the court's dissatisfaction with his past criminal record and find it to be without merit (People v. Burton, 150 ... ...
- People v. Conyers
-
People v. Sims
... ... Kinard, 215 A.D.2d 591, 626 N.Y.S.2d 858; see also, People v. Cook, 176 A.D.2d 341, 574 N.Y.S.2d 777; People v. Austin, 168 A.D.2d 502, 562 N.Y.S.2d 745; People v. Glover, 165 A.D.2d 761, 564 N.Y.S.2d 273). This fact, as well as the positive tenor of the jury's subsequent communication to the court and the fact that the jury reached its verdict approximately 5 ... ...