People v. Copeland
| Decision Date | 04 June 1979 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Clarence COPELAND, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Sparrow, Sparrow, Singer & Beck, Kew Gardens (Stephen J. Singer and Sidney G. Sparrow, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Michael J. Halberstam, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and DAMIANI, TITONE and MARTUSCELLO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 24, 1976, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered.
At the trial the evidence produced by the prosecution showed that the undercover police officer purchased cocaine from the defendant, after a confidential informant had introduced the officer to the defendant and had negotiated with the defendant for the purchase. The defendant requested that the court order the prosecution to produce the confidential informant. The court then held an In camera hearing pursuant to People v. Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, 356 N.Y.S.2d 571, 313 N.E.2d 41, cert. den. 419 U.S. 1012, 95 S.Ct. 332, 42 L.Ed.2d 286), at which the confidential informant appeared, together with the prosecutor. The defendant and his attorney were not present at the hearing. Following the hearing, the court denied the defendant's request.
The minutes of the hearing disclose that the court interrogated the confidential informant without having him sworn. This was error. Every witness over 12 years of age may testify only under oath, unless he suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders him unable to understand the nature of an oath (CPL 60.20, subd. 2). That requirement serves two purposes to alert the witness to the moral duty to testify truthfully and to deter false testimony through the sanction of a perjury prosecution (People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 45, 390 N.Y.S.2d 848, 856, 359 N.E.2d 358, 365). All proceedings of a judicial character connected with a criminal trial must be governed by that requirement (cf. Matter of Steven B., 30 A.D.2d 442, 293 N.Y.S.2d 946; People v. Masiano, 253 App.Div. 454, 3 N.Y.S.2d 766). A Goggins hearing, even though conducted In camera, means that the testimony of the confidential informant shall be taken.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ward, 2015–12019
...a mental disease or defect which renders him or her unable to understand the nature of the oath (see CPL 60.20[2] ; People v. Copeland , 70 A.D.2d 884, 884, 417 N.Y.S.2d 103 ). The requirement serves two purposes: "to alert the witness to the moral duty to testify truthfully and to deter fa......
-
People v. Wisdom
...to any prejudice suffered by a defendant” ( People v. Hoffler, 53 A.D.3d 116, 122–123, 860 N.Y.S.2d 266, citing People v. Copeland, 70 A.D.2d 884, 885, 417 N.Y.S.2d 103).3 We need not go that far here, but we agree that the requirement that witnesses be sworn is important because it [98 A.D......
-
Broadhead v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons and Paroles
...due process rights were violated by the refusal to administer oaths or affirmations to the witnesses. See People v. Copeland, 70 A.D.2d 884, 417 N.Y.S.2d 103 (1979). The deprivation of due process requires a remand to the trial court with instructions to order a rehearing on the parole revo......
-
People v. Zigles
...365. All proceedings of a judicial character connected with a criminal trial must be governed by that requirement (People v. Copeland, 70 A.D.2d 884, 417 N.Y.S.2d 103), including Grand Jury "The little girls were examined before the Grand Jury to determine whether they possessed sufficient ......