People v. Harris
| Decision Date | 30 December 1981 |
| Citation | 84 A.D.2d 63,445 N.Y.S.2d 520 |
| Parties | , 31 A.L.R.4th 525 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jean S. HARRIS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., of Westchester County, White Plains (Anthony Joseph Servino, Gerald D. Reilly and Richard E. Weill, Asst. Dist. Attys., of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P. J., and HOPKINS, TITONE, WEINSTEIN and BRACKEN, JJ.
This appeal arises out of the homicide of Dr. Herman Tarnower, a noted Westchester cardiologist and proponent of the so-called Scarsdale Diet. His convicted slayer, defendant Jean Harris, was the divorced headmistress of the Madeira School in Virginia. She had been Tarnower's companion and paramour for over 13 years.
The prosecution's theory was that Mrs. Harris, desperately unhappy over the loss of Dr. Tarnower's affections and resentful of his relationship with a younger woman, entered his home, unannounced and unexpected, and intentionally shot him three times, causing his death. Mrs. Harris, who never denied having shot Dr. Tarnower, maintained Thus, the lines at trial were clearly drawn. The crucial question was whether Dr. Tarnower had been intentionally murdered or, instead, had died as a result of a tragic accident. The jury resolved the question in favor of the prosecution, convicting the defendant of intentional murder and other lesser related crimes.
that the shooting was accidental. She insisted that concerns over her troubled relationship with the doctor had played no part in her actions. Instead, she claimed that, consumed with feelings of her own inadequacy and distraught over setbacks in her professional life, she had decided to take her own life on the grounds of the Tarnower estate which she had grown to love and to think of as her home. She claimed that Dr. Tarnower, in his struggle to prevent her from committing suicide, was himself accidentally shot and killed.
Mrs. Harris does not contend that the proof at trial was legally insufficient to support a murder conviction or that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Instead, she argues that a variety of errors committed at trial deprived her of a full and fair opportunity to present and support her version of the incident before a properly constituted and impartial jury.
We turn first to a review of the evidence adduced from the more than 90 witnesses who appeared at the defendant's 14-week trial.
The prosecution's efforts to reconstruct the events in question rested primarily on the testimony of Suzanne van der Vreken, Dr. Tarnower's housemanager, and on the account of police officers who responded to the scene after the shooting. Mrs. van der Vreken, who had worked for Tarnower for 16 years, lived in the Tarnower home with her husband Henri who was himself employed as the doctor's estate manager. Mrs. van der Vreken's recollection was aided by a book in which she recorded the names of Dr. Tarnower's guests and the dates on which they visited his home. 1 She was thus able to provide a history of Tarnower's relationship with Mrs. Harris and with her rival, divorcee Lynn Tryforos.
Mrs. van der Vreken first met Jean Harris in 1967 at the Tarnower home. Harris soon became a frequent visitor there and often accompanied the doctor on trips abroad. She also vacationed with him on holidays. Whenever Harris spent the night at the Tarnower residence, she slept in his bedroom. According to Mrs. van der Vreken, however, Harris was not Dr. Tarnower's only love interest.
Mrs. van der Vreken testified that, in early 1975, she became aware that the doctor was dating his employee, Lynn Tryforos. As time passed, Tryforos' visits to the Tarnower home became more frequent, and on various occasions she was invited to spend the night. Like Harris, when Tryforos stayed overnight at the house, she slept in Tarnower's bedroom. Although Dr. Tarnower dated other women after 1975, only Harris and Tryforos ever spent the night with him at his home.
With Mrs. van der Vreken's help, Tarnower attempted to keep the two women apart. When Tryforos was expected, he would ask Mrs. van der Vreken to make sure that Harris' clothing and personal belongings were hidden away. When Harris was invited, the same would be done with any item belonging to Tryforos.
As Tryforos' visits became more frequent, Harris' seemed to become less so. According to Mrs. van der Vreken's book, Harris was a guest at the Tarnower home at least 63 times in 1977. In 1978 she spent the night on at least 49 occasions. In 1979 that number was reduced to 26.
Despite Tarnower's apparent efforts to keep the women apart, it was clear that they knew about each other. Indeed, Harris frequently spoke to Mrs. van der Vreken Tarnower and Harris spent the Christmas and New Year's holidays of 1979 together in Palm Beach, Florida. Thereafter, in early February, 1980, while Tarnower and Tryforos were traveling out of the country together, Mrs. Harris called Mrs. van der Vreken to ask if she would mind arranging a small dinner party for her son David who was getting married. Mrs. van der Vreken replied that she would not mind, provided that Tarnower approved. The request struck Mrs. van der Vreken as unusual since, whenever a party was planned, Tarnower would tell her about it well in advance. He had mentioned nothing of a party for David Harris. Nevertheless, in mid-February, a prewedding party was held for David in the Tarnower residence, and Mrs. van der Vreken described it as a joyous occasion. Mrs. Harris herself was Tarnower's overnight guest on the weekend of the party. She was not to return to Tarnower's home until the night of Monday, March 10, 1980.
about Tryforos. Moreover, the rivalry was not always conducted on the highest level. In March, 1979, for example, Harris and Tarnower spent a week in the Caribbean. When they returned, Harris discovered that her clothing, kept in a closet on the first floor of Tarnower's home, had been ripped and slashed. Other than the servants, the only person in the house while Tarnower and Harris were on vacation was Lynn Tryforos. Mrs. van der Vreken mentioned the incident to Tarnower, but he took no action.
On that date, at approximately 5:30 P.M., Harris drove her blue Chrysler to the house of the Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds at the Madeira School. The car was assigned to her as Madeira's headmistress and bore Virginia license plates. Harris asked the superintendent if she could get some gasoline because she was late for a dinner party and was afraid that there would be a long line at the nearby gas station. The superintendent agreed and filled her car with gas. He noticed nothing unusual about Mrs. Harris that day except that she appeared to be in a great hurry.
Meanwhile, at the Tarnower house, Mrs. van der Vreken was preparing a dinner planned for the doctor, his niece Debbie Raizes, and Lynn Tryforos. Tryforos had spent the weekend with Tarnower at his home, and had left with him early that morning. Each had appeared to be in a good mood, and they were making plans for another trip.
In the late afternoon of March 10, 1980, prior to Tarnower's return from work, Mrs. van der Vreken received two telephone calls from Mrs. Harris. During the first call, Harris simply asked if Tarnower was at home and Mrs. van der Vreken replied that he was not. Sounding angry, Harris hung up. When Harris called back, she again asked if Tarnower was at home and, when Mrs. van der Vreken replied that he was not, Harris asked if he would be there for dinner. Mrs. van der Vreken said that he would not. Harris then asked if Tarnower planned to go to New York that evening, saying that she could meet him there. Mrs. van der Vreken said that she did not know. Mrs. van der Vreken testified that, during this second call, Harris sounded worried and, as she hung up, she seemed to be crying.
In answering Harris as she did, Mrs. van der Vreken was following Dr. Tarnower's instructions. Some six or eight months earlier, he had told her that, if he had guests when Mrs. Harris called, Mrs. van der Vreken was to tell her that he was not at home. Apparently Mrs. van der Vreken had also followed these directions when Harris had called on the preceding three days during which Tryforos had been Tarnower's houseguest.
Mrs. van der Vreken testified that, on the evening of March 10, 1980, Tarnower's bedroom was in perfect order. Tryforos' nightgown, robe, slippers and jewelry were still in the guest's bathroom. When Tarnower returned home, he went into the living room and read the papers. He then went upstairs to change for dinner. His guests, Debbie Raizes and Lynn Tryforos, arrived together about 7:00 P.M. Dinner was served by Henri and the meal was completed Mrs. van der Vreken testified that, ordinarily, when guests were expected at night, a light would be left on at the top of the outside steps. On the night of March 10, 1980, after the dinner guests had gone and Dr. Tarnower had retired to his bedroom, the lights on the steps were out.
by approximately 8:00 P.M. After dinner, they all celebrated Mrs. van der Vreken's birthday with a cake that Tryforos had brought for the occasion. The weather was rainy and stormy, and the women left together at approximately 8:45 P.M. Some five minutes later Tarnower went upstairs to bed.
Sometime later, Henri went to sleep. Mrs. van der Vreken, however, decided to paint and to watch television before going to bed. Suddenly, at approximately 10:45 or 11:00 P.M., she heard the buzzer on the kitchen telephone. The buzzer was a device by which Tarnower would generally contact the servants, using the attachment on his own telephone in his bedroom. Mrs. van der Vreken was surprised to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hoisington
...a guard from testifying concerning conversations that he has overheard between defendant and his attorney. E.g., People v. Harris, 84 A.D.2d 63, 445 N.Y.S.2d 520, 547-48 (1981). Another line of cases dictates that although it may be an inconvenience, a defendant is not denied his right to c......
-
People v. Brown
...contemplated by CPL 270.20(1)(c) ( see, People v. Culhane, 33 N.Y.2d 90, 104, n. 2, 350 N.Y.S.2d 381, 305 N.E.2d 469; People v. Harris, 84 A.D.2d 63, 445 N.Y.S.2d 520, affd. 57 N.Y.2d 335, 456 N.Y.S.2d 694, 442 N.E.2d 1205, cert. denied 460 U.S. 1047, 103 S.Ct. 1448, 75 L.Ed.2d 803; see als......
-
People v. Harris
...the conflict in favor of the People, finding defendant guilty as charged. That conviction was subsequently affirmed (People v. Harris, 84 A.D.2d 63, 445 N.Y.S.2d 520, affd. 57 N.Y.2d 335, 456 N.Y.S.2d 694, 442 N.E.2d 1205, cert. denied 460 U.S. 1047, 103 S.Ct. 1448, 75 L.Ed.2d 803, supra ),......
-
People v. Quartararo
...People v. Sims, 110 A.D.2d 214, 225, 494 N.Y.S.2d 114; People v. Costello, 104 A.D.2d 947, 948, 480 N.Y.S.2d 565; People v. Harris, 84 A.D.2d 63, 100-101, 445 N.Y.S.2d 520, aff'd 57 N.Y.2d 335, 456 N.Y.S.2d 694, 442 N.E.2d 1205, cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1047, 103 S.Ct. 1448, 75 L.Ed.2d 803). ......