People v. Dawkins
| Decision Date | 31 December 2001 |
| Citation | 735 N.Y.S.2d 818,289 A.D.2d 589 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JERMAINE DAWKINS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgments are reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
At trial, the People requested that the defendant not be permitted to testify with respect to his whereabouts at certain relevant times, as he had failed to provide the People with notice of his alibi defense (see, CPL 250.20). The County Court granted the People's request. The defendant contends that the County Court's ruling constituted reversible error. We agree. The preclusive provisions of CPL 250.20 do not apply to a defendant's testimony, since the defendant has an absolute right, both statutorily and constitutionally, to testify on his own behalf (see, People v Rakiec, 289 NY 306; People v Peace, 256 AD2d 1014; People v Cuevas, 67 AD2d 219, 224; People v Duncan, 187 Misc 2d 205, 207-208; People v Rosado, 153 Misc 2d 477; Walker v Hood, 679 F Supp 372, 381, affd 854 F2d 1315; see also, Alicea v Gagnon, 675 F2d 913). Therefore, the County Court committed reversible error in precluding the defendant from testifying as to his alibi.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fritze
...v. Belge, 41 N.Y.2d 60, 62–63, 390 N.Y.S.2d 867, 378 (1976) [concurring opn. by Fuchsberg, J.]; See also: People v. Dawkins, 289 A.D.2d 589, 735 N.Y.S.2d 818 (2nd Dept.2001); People v. Hudson, 217 A.D.2d 53, 634 N.Y.S.2d 752 (2nd Dept.1995) Contrary to the Defendant's wishes, the court does......
- People v. CORSTON, JR.