People v. Hall
| Citation | 155 A.D.2d 344,547 N.Y.S.2d 312 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sedrick HALL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 21 November 1989 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
R. Feinberg, for respondent.
L.W.L. Fahey, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before CARRO, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, ELLERIN, WALLACH and SMITH, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen M. Myers, J.), rendered January 7, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of three and one-half to seven years unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, the judgment vacated and the matter remanded for a new trial.
We find that the cumulative effect of a Sandoval ruling and several comments during the charge were prejudicial to the defendant, requiring a reversal of the judgment and a new trial.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of the December 11, 1985 assault and robbery of Margaret Harmsworth. The People's case hinged upon the eye-witness testimony of the victim, Ms. Harmsworth. She testified that at approximately 10:30 P.M. on December 11, 1985, the defendant, who was unknown to her, approached her on the sidewalk in front of her residence, struggled with her for possession of her handbag, struck her on the shoulder and ran off with the handbag. The defendant was wearing a sweatshirt with a hood that covered his hair. That evening Ms. Harmsworth described her assailant to police as slender, five feet nine inches tall and clean shaven. She admitted, upon cross-examination that she had been using methadone for eighteen years.
On January 28, 1986, approximately seven weeks later, Ms. Harmsworth, upon viewing a line-up, identified the defendant as her assailant. When arrested, the defendant told police that he was five feet, eight inches tall and that he weighed 160 pounds. The defendant, who had a slight mustache, gave police a home address which is only a few city blocks away from the location of the robbery. The defendant did not testify at trial.
The owner of the hotel in which Ms. Harmsworth lived testified for the defense that he had known her for fourteen months, that her reputation for honesty was "very bad", and that he had tried twice, unsuccessfully, to evict her from the hotel.
We reverse for several reasons.
First, the trial court erred in ruling on the defendant's Sandoval (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 [1974] motion that, should the defendant take the witness stand, the People could fully explore two prior convictions for attempted robbery as well as the underlying facts. The first conviction in 1981 involved defendant and companions setting fire to occupied token booths and demanding money from clerks who were inside while the booths were engulfed in flames. One of the clerks was burned while trying to escape and a second fled without injury. Another conviction in 1986 resulted from the defendant and four others surrounding a man on the street and stealing his gold chain.
"Pursuant to People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 and its progeny, a trial court has an obligation to strike a balance between the prosecutor's right to impeach a defendant's credibility and the danger of establishing in the minds of the jury a propensity by the defendant to commit the crime charged." People v. Bowles, 132 A.D.2d 465, 466, 517 N.Y.S.2d 155 (1st Dept., 1987). Where, as here, the prior crimes are similar to the crime for which the defendant is being tried and the underlying facts are so shocking, the risk of unfair prejudice is particularly pronounced since despite the most clear and forceful limiting instruction, a jury is likely to have considered evidence of the prior crimes as some proof of the commission of the crime charged rather than as solely probative of the defendant's credibility. People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d at 377-378, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413; People v. Bowles, supra; People v. Acevedo, 83 A.D.2d 813, 814, 442 N.Y.S.2d 56 (1st Dept., 1981). Moreover, it cannot be said that this error was harmless since proof of the defendant's guilt was not overwhelming and the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Clemons
...charge was confusing and the charge on the "presumption of innocence" minimized the significance of the presumption (People v. Hall, 155 A.D.2d 344, 547 N.Y.S.2d 312). An instruction on "intent" was completely omitted from the court's supplemental charge on the robbery counts (see, People v......
-
People v. Rice
...Such facts would not have led the jury to conclude that defendant had a propensity to commit robbery and murder (cf., People v. Hall, 155 A.D.2d 344, 345, 547 N.Y.S.2d 312), and they were not so remote in time as to be without probative value (see, People v. Smith, 217 A.D.2d 520, 630 N.Y.S......
-
People v. Smith
... ... A court, therefore, has an obligation to balance the prosecutor's right to explore defendant's credibility and " 'the danger of establishing in the minds of the jury a propensity by the defendant to commit the crime charged' " (People v. Hall, 155 A.D.2d 344, 345, 547 N.Y.S.2d 312) ... Here the trial court ruled that if defendant took the stand the prosecutor would be permitted to elicit that defendant had previously been convicted of criminal sale of a controlled [217 A.D.2d 523] substance in the second degree, had ... ...
-
People v. Rivera
...charge was not balanced is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, lacks merit (cf., People v. Hall, 155 A.D.2d 344, 547 N.Y.S.2d 312). Defendant likewise failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erroneously instructed the jury in its cha......