People v. Haines
| Decision Date | 11 April 1988 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert HAINES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (B. Kay Huff, of counsel), for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (William Schrager, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and EIBER, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered May 8, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.
On cross-examination of the defendant the prosecutor asked the defendant about his failure to come forward with an exculpatory version of the events at the time he was arrested. Such questioning was improper and highly prejudicial ( see, People v. Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454, 459, 438 N.Y.S.2d 741, 420 N.E.2d 933; People v. Copeland, 127 A.D.2d 846, 511 N.Y.S.2d 949). During the colloquy following defense counsel's objection to the inquiry, the Trial Judge failed to recognize the impropriety of the inquiry despite counsel's invocation of the defendant's right to remain silent. After overruling the objection, the Trial Judge, himself, asked the defendant whether he had told his version of the events to the police at the time he was arrested. The Trial Judge's inquiry indicated that he believed the defendant's post-arrest silence could cast doubt on his credibility ( Hawkins v. LeFevre, 758 F.2d 866, 875, 878). As the evidence of the defendant's guilt was not overwhelming, the improper inquiry had the effect of depriving the defendant of a fair trial ( see, People v. Livingston, 128 A.D.2d 645, 512 N.Y.S.2d 889).
We have considered the defendant's additional contention that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined the defendant regarding his alibi witnesses and find it to be without merit ( see, People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583; People v. Morales, 126 A.D.2d 575, 510 N.Y.S.2d 693).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tucker
...denied 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475; People v. Spinelli, 214 A.D.2d at 139–140, 631 N.Y.S.2d 863; People v. Haines, 139 A.D.2d 591, 592, 527 N.Y.S.2d 85). This is because an individual's silence may be attributable to “a variety of innocent circumstances that are completely ......
- People v. Gittens
-
People v. Mejia
...the People to pursue this improper line of inquiry (see, People v. Dyer, 201 A.D.2d 498, 607 N.Y.S.2d 379; see also, People v. Haines, 139 A.D.2d 591, 527 N.Y.S.2d 85). Moreover, as it is possible that the jury construed Robinson's silence as an admission of guilt, there was a substantial r......