People v. Herman
| Decision Date | 18 November 1992 |
| Citation | 590 N.Y.S.2d 619,187 A.D.2d 1027 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John H. HERMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Donald Thompson, for appellant.
Dennis Bender, Seneca Falls, for respondent.
Before GREEN, J.P., and PINE, BALIO, BOEHM and DAVIS, JJ.
On this appeal from a judgment convicting him of sodomy in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.45), defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it admitted into evidence a book entitled "The Joy of Gay Sex" and a videotape about homosexual activities. Those items were seized by police when they conducted a search of defendant's bedroom subsequent to his arrest on the sodomy charge. Defendant asserts that the book and videotape were not relevant to any issue in the case and that they could only have been introduced either to convince the jury that defendant had a propensity to commit sexual acts, such as the act charged, or to prejudice the jury against defendant based upon his alleged sexual preferences. We agree. Those items were not relevant because they had no "tendency in reason to prove the existence of any material fact", that is, they did not make "determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence" (People v. Scarola, 71 N.Y.2d 769, 777, 530 N.Y.S.2d 83, 525 N.E.2d 728; see also, People v. Lewis, 69 N.Y.2d 321, 325, 514 N.Y.S.2d 205, 506 N.E.2d 915; Richardson, Evidence § 4 [Prince 10th ed].
Furthermore, even if the book and videotape were relevant to some material issue in the case, the trial court erred in admitting those items into evidence because the "probative value [was] substantially outweighed by the danger that [the admission] * * * unfairly prejudice[d] [defendant] or [misled] the jury" (People v. Scarola, supra, 71 N.Y.2d at 777, 530 N.Y.S.2d 83, 525 N.E.2d 728). Moreover, the admission of the book and videotape is not subject to a "harmless error" analysis because proof of defendant's guilt, without reference to the error, is not overwhelming (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787). Therefore, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial granted.
Because we are granting a new trial, we take this opportunity to remind the prosecutor that it was improper and highly prejudicial to defendant to compel him, on cross-examination, "to characterize the police witnesses as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Horn, 704
...would prejudice defendant or mislead the jury, the court abused its discretion in admitting it (see People v. Herman , 187 A.D.2d 1027, 1028, 590 N.Y.S.2d 619 [4th Dept. 1992] ; cf. Scarola , 71 N.Y.2d at 777, 530 N.Y.S.2d 83, 525 N.E.2d 728 ). Nevertheless, we conclude that the error is ha......
-
Dunnigan v. Keane
...state law, see, e.g., People v. Jackson, 227 A.D.2d 137, 140, 641 N.Y.S.2d 840, 843 (1st Dep't 1996); People v. Herman, 187 A.D.2d 1027, 1028, 590 N.Y.S.2d 619, 620 (4th Dep't 1992); see generally 1A Wigmore on Evidence § 58.2 (Tillers rev.1983), and federal law, see, e.g., Fed.R.Evid. 403.......
-
People v. Dutcher
...is appropriate only when the appeal is from a judgment that the District Attorney concedes should be reversed (see, People v. Herman, 187 A.D.2d 1027, 590 N.Y.S.2d 619; People v. Pacella, 47 A.D.2d 711, 364 N.Y.S.2d 258). (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Scudder, J.--Sexual Ab......
-
People v. Vullo
...(see 22 NYCRR 1000.2 [d] ). The District Attorney thus failed "to perform his duty to the people of his county" ( People v. Herman, 187 A.D.2d 1027, 1028, 590 N.Y.S.2d 619 ; see People v. Wright, 22 A.D.2d 754, 754, 253 N.Y.S.2d 653, affd. 16 N.Y.2d 736, 262 N.Y.S.2d 113, 209 N.E.2d 728, ce......