People v. Jones
| Decision Date | 05 March 1987 |
| Citation | 128 A.D.2d 405,512 N.Y.S.2d 691 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. Dana JONES. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
M.A. Schwartz, New York City, for the People.
J.S. Brand, New York City, for Jones.
Dana Jones, pro se.
Before SANDLER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, MILONAS and WALLACH, JJ.
Motion by defendant-appellant for an order granting leave to reargue is granted, and upon reargument the order of this court, 124 A.D.2d 1076, 507 N.Y.S.2d 781, entered November 6, 1986, is vacated, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.) rendered January 11, 1983, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees, and imposed concurrent prison terms of fifteen years to life (twice) and one to three years, is reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.
In his brief and argument on appeal to this court defendant's main contention for reversal was breach by the prosecution of the Rosario rule (People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881) arising from the following circumstances. At defendant's trial an important witness who participated in the drug sale which formed the basis for his conviction was one Takum Taza, an admitted former narcotics dealer, who testified that after being shot in the head in 1981 by a rival drug dealer, he retired from this criminal activity and became a paid confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration. Obviously, such a witness presented the defense with a promising opportunity for impeachment. Both in a post-trial motion (denied by Justice Evans), and in this court, defendant argued that his impeachment of Taza was illegally restricted by the prosecutor's failure to turn over, in accordance with Rosario, the following four documents:
(1) Five pages of notes on a legal pad concerning Taza written by the trial assistant, assistant district attorney Daniel Penofsky;
(2) Three pages of notes concerning Taza written by assistant district attorney Michael Manci;
(3) A DEA-6 form containing an initial debriefing of Taza conducted by Detective Lawrence Gerhold on January 29, 1981; and,
(4) A DEA-6 form, dated February 3, 1981, containing a case initiation report with statements by Taza.
The People's brief on appeal conceded that at least two of these four documents constituted Rosario material. Defendant urged that under then existing law (People v. Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154, 490 N.Y.S.2d 747, 480 N.E.2d 361; People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 387 N.Y.S.2d 62, 354 N.E.2d 801) no resort to "harmless error" analysis will avail to excuse full disclosure in compliance with Rosario. The People countered with the argument that the rigid result in Perez and Consolazio, (which would appear to all but foreclose harmless error analysis), should apply only where the failure to turn over the material was intentional, and that since (as found by Justice Evans) the failure here was clearly unintentional and not in bad faith, reversal here would be unwarranted.
Realistically, there is substantial support for the proposition that the People's non-disclosure here was truly harmless. The withheld documents would have disclosed the following discrepancies at variance with Taza's trial testimony: he started selling drugs in 1978, and not in 1980; he sold 250 to 500 (and not 100) quarters of heroin a week in the course of his drug dealing career; he lost his last honest job as a cab driver for embezzling fare receipts and not because of tickets and violations that he had permitted to accumulate; and, he had been arrested in 1978 on a weapons charge. Because defendant successfully impeached Taza with many damaging matters, including his shootout with another narcotics dealer and his deep involvement in illegal drug traffic, there is much to be said for the view that these additional topics for impeachment were, in context, simply cumulative, if not trivial. That is the position that this court took in its unanimous affirmance.
Whatever may be the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Jones
-
Hizbullahankhamon v. Walker
...... . On direct appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the conviction, People v. Johnson, 181 A.D.2d 509 (1st Dep't 1992). The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal, People v. Johnson, 80 N.Y.2d ...See People v. Robles, 203 A.D.2d 172, 177 (1st Dep't 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 86 N.Y.2d 763 (1995); People v. Jones, 128 A.D.2d 405, 407 (1st Dep't), aff'd, 70 N.Y.2d 547 (1987); McMahon v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 101, 104 (1st Dep't 1984); People v. ......
-
D'Alessandro v. City of N.Y.
...by Court of Appeals on the grounds that prosecutor's statements were harmless and cross-examination was proper). 7. People v. Jones, 128 A.D.2d 405, 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1987) (prosecutor failed to disclose certain documents in violation of state law); People v. Taylor, 160 A.D.2d ......
-
People v. Fields
...981 [2018] ), although defendant may wish to revisit the issue should subsequent developments warrant it (see e.g. People v. Jones , 128 A.D.2d 405, 407, 512 N.Y.S.2d 691 [1987], affd 70 N.Y.2d 547, 523 N.Y.S.2d 53, 517 N.E.2d 865 [1987] ).The results of the TrueAllele analysis were placed ......