People v. Harper
| Decision Date | 20 February 1990 |
| Parties | , 552 N.E.2d 148 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Montey HARPER, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The People appeal from an order of the Appellate Division which reversed a judgment entered on a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of bribe receiving by a witness (Penal Law § 215.05). The issue before us is whether an unlawful agreement to alter one's testimony or avoid appearing at an action or proceeding may fairly be inferred from a "release" agreement in which one party agrees to "drop" criminal and civil charges in exchange for money and other valuable consideration. We agree with the Appellate Division that such a purported "release" is, without more, legally insufficient to establish the elements of the crime.
This appeal revolves around a feud between the Harper and Johnson families. The imbroglio began during the spring of 1981 when defendant, Montey Harper, became romantically involved with Mabel Betty Gladden, who was at that time married to James Johnson. Although Gladden jilted Harper near the end of 1981, during the next few years Harper persistently pursued the relationship by following her around, apparently hoping that she would change her mind and resume the affair. This behavior infuriated Gladden's children, especially James Johnson, Jr., also known as Rick James, and his brother Carmen Johnson. During the late evening of June 1, 1984, Harper was assaulted at the 2001 Club in Amherst, New York. Harper alleged that Rick James and Carmen Johnson were his assailants. On June 4, Harper sought legal advice in drafting a criminal misdemeanor complaint against Rick James and Carmen Johnson, and exploring the possibility of instituting a civil action. On June 5, Harper filed assault charges in the Amherst Town Court against Rick James and Carmen Johnson.
A few days later, Harper approached Betty Gladden, informed her about the assault and threatened to bring a civil suit and pursue the criminal charges, unless she paid Harper $10,000. Gladden acceded to Harper's demands. Prior to giving Harper any money, however, Gladden had Harper execute a general release agreement. This agreement, drawn up on law firm stationery, and signed by Harper and Gladden in the presence of a notary, provided that:
The agreement further provided a time schedule by which an additional $5,000 would be paid to Harper.
After the initial $5,000 was delivered to Harper, Gladden drove Harper directly to the Amherst Town Court so that Harper could perform his end of the bargain by having the criminal charges dismissed. Harper met with Assistant District Attorney Joel Kurtzhalts, and informed him that he wanted to have the charges dismissed since he had worked out "some restitution." Since Kurtzhalts had not been assigned to the case and did not have access to the case file, he refused to dismiss the charges. Nevertheless, the charges against Rick James were dismissed on October 1, 1984, without the assistance of Harper, due to facial insufficiency.
On October 3, 1984, Harper retained a new attorney who refiled the assault charges in criminal court because Gladden had failed to make some of the scheduled payments, and James was purportedly violating the nonharassment clause of the release. At this time, Harper informed Assistant District Attorney Graff that he no longer wanted to drop the charges against James, since he had not received all of the money that he was supposed to have received under the release agreement. Thereafter, Harper proceeded to make himself available to the prosecution and attended each court appearance made by James. Ultimately, the assault charges were again dismissed on March 19, 1985, upon the court's own motion, because of its view that the matter was better handled in alternate dispute resolution or in a civil action.
Meanwhile, Betty Gladden, having paid a total of $6,400, became financially unable to fulfill the remainder of her side of the bargain. Concerned that Harper would continue to harass her family, Gladden spoke with an attorney, who brought this entire matter to the attention of the District Attorney.
Harper was charged with bribe receiving by a witness in contravention of Penal Law § 215.05, and, after a jury trial, was found guilty as charged. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Harper's conviction and dismissed the indictment, concluding the evidence presented was legally insufficient since "the record contains no evidence that defendant would alter his testimony if the criminal prosecution against the son were continued or that defendant sought to absent himself or otherwise avoid appearing as required by the People." (145 A.D.2d 933, 536 N.Y.S.2d 301.)
As a threshold matter, in reviewing legal sufficiency we are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and decide whether a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560). Applying this standard to the evidence presented at trial, the Appellate Division correctly concluded that the jury verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence to establish that defendant committed the crime.
Penal Law § 215.05 provides that: "A witness * * * is guilty of bribe receiving by a witness when he solicits,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Travis Y.
...454 N.E.2d 522 [1983]; Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 573, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297 [1988]; People v. Harper, 75 N.Y.2d 313, 318, 552 N.Y.S.2d 900, 552 N.E.2d 148 [1990]; People v. Glanda, 18 A.D.3d 956, 959, 794 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 848, 816 N.Y.S.2d 754, 84......
-
In re Kaminski G.
...182, 454 N.E.2d 522; Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 573, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297; People v. Harper, 75 N.Y.2d 313, 318, 552 N.Y.S.2d 900, 552 N.E.2d 148), the prosecutor cannot draft an accusatory instrument in order to evade limitations placed upon the subject matter......
-
People v. Watson
...second degree (Penal Law § 130.65; § 130.60 [2]) and, accordingly, assault in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 120.05 [6]; People v Harper, 75 N.Y.2d 313, 316; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621; People v Stickles, 267 A.D.2d 604, 605, appeal dismissed 95 N.Y.2d We have examined defenda......
-
People v. Tansey
...their terms so that penal responsibility is not extended beyond the fair scope of the statutory mandate" (People v. Harper, 75 N.Y.2d 313, 318, 552 N.Y.S.2d 900, 552 N.E.2d 148 [1990]; see, Penal Law § 5.00). Moreover, it is a basic rule of statutory interpretation that the meaning of a sta......