People v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 18 December 1972 |
| Citation | 338 N.Y.S.2d 760,40 A.D.2d 1006 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Alvin JACKSON, Appellant. |
Before SHAPIRO, Acting P.J., and GULOTTA, CHRIST, BRENNAN and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 21, 1972, convicting him of assault in the second degree and possession of a dangerous weapon as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted.
During the prosecutor's summation he described defendant as 'the kingpin of South Jamaica' and, in order to bolster the credibility of the People's witness who had testified he was the victim of the assault in question, stressed at length the risk of physical reprisal to which this witness had exposed himself by testifying. There was no basis in the record for these statements. In view of the fact that the People's entire case rested upon the credibility of this witness, we are of the opinion that these comments deprived defendant of a fair trial (People v. Mezzapella, 19 A.D.2d 729, 242 N.Y.S.2d 536; People v. Damon, 24 N.Y.2d 256, 259, 299 N.Y.S.2d 830, 832, 247 N.E.2d 651, 652; People v. Webb, 23 A.D.2d 893, 260 N.Y.S.2d 95).
At the new trial the 'UF--61' police report sought to be introduced into evidence by defendant should be admitted into evidence if it indicates that the source of the information contained in it was the complaining witness. The fact that the officer who recorded the entry was not the officer who obtained the information does not impair the admissibility of the report under the business record rule. If the complaining witness was the source of the information it should have been admitted in evidence as a statement inconsistent with his testimony at the trial that he had immediately identified defendant as the perpetrator (5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., pars. 4518.02(5), 4518.11).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Perry
...v. D'Ippolito, 19 N.J. 540, 547, 117 A.2d 592 (1955); State v. Welsch, 29 N.J. 152, 158, 148 A.2d 313 (1959); People v. Jackson, 40 A.D.2d 1006, 338 N.Y.S.2d 760 (App.Div.1972). For the second time this term I am emboldened to disagree with the majority's opinion of the prosecutor's remarks......
-
Harris v. Senkowski
...any event, Harris' counsel could have introduced the complaint report into evidence as a business record. See People v. Jackson, 40 A.D.2d 1006, 338 N.Y.S.2d 760 (2d. Dep't 1972) (allowing complaint report into evidence as a business record if "the complaining witness was the source of the ......
-
People v. Mullings
...it was the complaining witness,” and that information is inconsistent with the testimony of the complaining witness ( People v. Jackson, 40 A.D.2d 1006, 1007, 338 N.Y.S.2d 760; see People v. Steward, 54 A.D.3d 880, 882, 864 N.Y.S.2d 488; People v. Moore, 193 A.D.2d 627, 628, 597 N.Y.S.2d 44......
-
People v. Ainsley
...People v. Steward, 54 A.D.3d 880, 882, 864 N.Y.S.2d 488 ; People v. Moore, 193 A.D.2d 627, 628, 597 N.Y.S.2d 444 ; People v. Jackson, 40 A.D.2d 1006, 1007, 338 N.Y.S.2d 760 ). However, for the reasons noted above, the failure to admit this evidence also was harmless error (see People v. Cri......