People v. Griffith

• Citation: 80 A.D.2d 590,435 N.Y.S.2d 767
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ernesto GRIFFITH, a/k/a Bruce Wagner, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 09 February 1981
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 767

435 N.Y.S.2d 767

80 A.D.2d 590

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ernesto GRIFFITH, a/k/a Bruce Wagner, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Feb. 9, 1981.

William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Thomas H. Busch, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jane S. Meyers, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, J. P., and GIBBONS, GULOTTA and WEINSTEIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 18, 1977, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court, rendered May 25, 1977, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgments reversed, on the law, plea vacated (Indictment No. 3567/76), and cases remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith.

A new trial is necessary on the sodomy and sexual abuse charges because of prejudicial questions and comments made by the prosecutor which deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Shanis, 36 N.Y.2d 697, 366 N.Y.S.2d 413, 325 N.E.2d 873; People v. Brosnan, 32 N.Y.2d 254, 344 N.Y.S.2d 900, 298 N.E.2d 78, 261-262; People v. Wallason, 62 A.D.2d 1026, 404 N.Y.S.2d 23). During the trial, the prosecutor repeatedly called the defendant a "thief", a "liar", and characterized his behavior as that of an "animal in prey", "a cat" and a "creature". These comments clearly exceed the bounds of legitimate advocacy and only serve to prejudice the jury against the defendant (see People v. Shanis, supra; People v. Brosnan, supra; People v. Billingsley, 74 A.D.2d 645, 425 N.Y.S.2d 139; see, also, People v. Butler, 57 A.D.2d 931, 395 N.Y.S.2d 36; People v. Petrucelli, 44 A.D.2d 58, 353 N.Y.S.2d 194; People v. Sarmiento, 40 A.D.2d 562, 334 N.Y.S.2d 210).

A new trial is required in this case despite the fact that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because the denial of a fair trial to the defendant cannot be dismissed as harmless error (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 238, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Rivera, 75 A.D.2d 544, 426 N.Y.S.2d 785; People v. Bennett, 65 A.D.2d 801, 410 N.Y.S.2d 304).

A reversal of the sodomy conviction also requires us to vacate the plea of guilty on the robbery charge. The plea on the robbery charge was conditioned on a negotiated agreement that the defendant would receive a sentence on the plea to be served concurrently with the sentence to be imposed as a result of the sodomy conviction. Therefore, to give effect to the plea commitment made by the trial court in this case the plea must be vacated (see People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 397 N.E.2d 709; People v. Clark, 45 N.Y.2d 432, 408 N.Y.S.2d 463, 380 N.E.2d 290; see, also, People v. Schaaff, 77 A.D.2d 607, 430 N.Y.S.2d 3 (2d Dept., July 14 1980); People v. Miller, 76 A.D.2d 576, 430 N.Y.S.2d 865).

We also hold that the robbery conviction must be reversed and the plea vacated because the trial court induced the defendant to plead guilty by the explicit threat of a heavier sentence should he choose to proceed to trial (see People v. Hollis, 74 A.D.2d 585, 424 N.Y.S.2d 483, mot. for lv. to app. den. 49 N.Y.2d 1004, 429 N.Y.S.2d ---, 406 N.E.2d 1087).

We note that the trial court did not err in limiting the defendant's cross-examination of the complaining witness. Its ruling was not an abuse of its discretion to regulate the extent of cross-examination (see Feldsberg v. Nitschke, 49 N.Y.2d 636, 427 N.Y.S.2d 751, 404 N.E.2d 1293; People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 367 N.Y.S.2d 236, 326 N.E.2d 804, cert. den. 423 U.S. 861, 96 S.Ct. 116, 46 L.Ed.2d 88; People v. Torres 72 A.D.2d 754, 421 N.Y.S.2d 275) since the questions objected to may have been reasonably interpreted by the trial court to involve an inquiry into impermissible areas (see CPL 60.42; People v. Mandel, 48 N.Y.2d 952, 425 N.Y.S.2d 63, 401 N.E.2d 185, revg. on other grounds, 61 A.D.2d 563, 403 N.Y.S.2d 63).

In addition, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that penetration was an essential element of the crime of sodomy. In any event, defense counsel did not preserve this issue for review as a matter of law since he did not request such a charge or except to its omission (see CPL 470.05, subd. 2; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467, 429 N.Y.S.2d 584, 407 N.E.2d 430).

...