People v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 19 February 2015 |
| Citation | 3 N.Y.S.3d 454,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01492,125 A.D.3d 1109 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Quentin LEWIS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Reversed and remanded.
Andrea G. Hirsch, New York City, for appellant.
Joseph Stanzione, District Attorney, Catskill (Danielle D. McIntosh of counsel), for respondent.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH and CLARK, JJ.McCARTHY, J.P.
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court of Greene County (Pulver Jr., J.), entered July 16, 2013, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL article 440 to vacate the judgment convicting him of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree, without a hearing.
Defendant, who was a prison inmate, was charged with murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the first degree in connection with an altercation that involved defendant and two other inmates and which resulted in one of them dying from a stab wound.1 At the ensuing jury trial, the People called, among other witnesses, inmates Wilfredo Galarza and Miguel Roman, who were the only witnesses who testified that they saw defendant fighting with the victim. The jury acquitted defendant of murder in the second degree but found him guilty of manslaughter in the first degree. County Court sentenced him, as a second violent felony offender, to 25 years in prison. This Court affirmed his conviction on appeal ( 300 A.D.2d 827, 752 N.Y.S.2d 172 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 630, 760 N.Y.S.2d 111, 790 N.E.2d 285 [2003] ). Defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction, alleging that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose that Roman and Galarza received favorable treatment in exchange for their testimony against defendant. County Court denied the motion without a hearing. Defendant, by permission, appeals.
We reverse, because defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion. Due process requires that the People disclose to the defendant any evidence in their possession that is “material to guilt or punishment” ( People v. Fuentes, 12 N.Y.3d 259, 263, 879 N.Y.S.2d 373, 907 N.E.2d 286 [2009]; see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 [1963]; People v. Steadman, 82 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 603 N.Y.S.2d 382, 623 N.E.2d 509 [1993] ). The People must disclose evidence relating to a witness's credibility, including “the ‘existence of an agreement between the prosecution and a witness, made to induce the testimony of the witness' ” ( People v. Novoa, 70 N.Y.2d 490, 496, 522 N.Y.S.2d 504, 517 N.E.2d 219 [1987], quoting People v. Cwikla, 46 N.Y.2d 434, 441, 414 N.Y.S.2d 102, 386 N.E.2d 1070 [1979]; see People v. Johnson, 107 A.D.3d 1161, 1164–1165, 967 N.Y.S.2d 217 [2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1075, 974 N.Y.S.2d 324, 997 N.E.2d 149 [2013] ). “To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material” ( People v. Fuentes, 12 N.Y.3d at 263, 879 N.Y.S.2d 373, 907 N.E.2d 286; see People v. Serrano, 99 A.D.3d 1105, 1106, 952 N.Y.S.2d 669 [2012], lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1014, 960 N.Y.S.2d 358, 984 N.E.2d 333 [2013] ). When a specific request has been made for the evidence that was withheld, “the materiality element is established provided there exists a ‘reasonable possibility’ that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” ( People v. Fuentes, 12 N.Y.3d at 263, 879 N.Y.S.2d 373, 907 N.E.2d 286, quoting People v. Vilardi, 76 N.Y.2d 67, 77, 556 N.Y.S.2d 518, 555 N.E.2d 915 [1990]; see People v. Bond, 95 N.Y.2d 840, 843, 713 N.Y.S.2d 514, 735 N.E.2d 1279 [2000] ).
At trial, Roman testified that he witnessed defendant and the codefendant in a confrontation with the victim and that defendant was making thrusting motions toward the victim. Roman testified that he was transferred to Clinton Correctional Facility after speaking to prison officials about defendant's involvement in this fight. Defense counsel attempted to elicit that Roman agreed to cooperate with correction officers to obtain favorable treatment, including a transfer to Clinton Correctional Facility because that facility allowed conjugal visits and his current facility did not, but Roman denied wanting a transfer and that he had been able to see his wife since the transfer.
In his affidavit submitted in support of defendant's CPL 440.10 motion, however, Roman averred that on the night of the fight, he was taken to see “the Investigator General.” After Roman denied seeing anything, prison staff threatened him to make him cooperate in the investigation. Roman specifically alleged that correction officers had found marihuana in his belongings and threatened to charge him with drug possession, send him to solitary confinement and cut off his correspondence privileges with his wife, who was also an inmate at the time. Roman further asserted that he was questioned again months later and, when he refused to testify before the grand jury, he was threatened with charges of perjury as well as drug possession. He then agreed to testify before the grand jury and at trial. Defendant also submitted affidavits from four other inmates who lived in the dorm where the fight occurred, all averring that they were subjected to threats or offered promises in exchange for information regarding this incident. Allegations that Roman provided coerced testimony are relevant to his credibility as a witness, and could have been used for impeachment purposes ( see People v. Colon, 13 N.Y.3d 343, 349, 890 N.Y.S.2d 424, 918 N.E.2d 936 [2009] ). This meets the first element to establish a Brady violation.
As to the second element, the People concede that they did not disclose to defendant prior to trial any threats or promises concerning Roman. The People have a duty to learn of favorable evidence in the possession of law enforcement officials, and such information is imputed to the People for Brady purposes ( see Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437–438, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 [1995]; People v. Santorelli, 95 N.Y.2d 412, 421, 718 N.Y.S.2d 696, 741 N.E.2d 493 [2000]; People v. Seeber, 94 A.D.3d 1335, 1338, 943 N.Y.S.2d 282 [2012] ). Evidence gathered by prison staff, however, generally is not “under the control or in the possession of the People or its agents, but was instead in the possession of an administrative agency that was not performing law enforcement functions” ( People v. Smith, 89 A.D.3d 1148, 1150, 931 N.Y.S.2d 803 [2011], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 968, 950 N.Y.S.2d 120, 973 N.E.2d 218 [2012]; see People v. Kelly, 88 N.Y.2d 248, 252, 644 N.Y.S.2d 475, 666 N.E.2d 1348 [1996]; People v. Howard, 87 N.Y.2d 940, 941, 641 N.Y.S.2d 222, 663 N.E.2d 1252 [1996] ). While Roman avers that correction officers threatened him on the day of the fight, he also mentioned that “the Investigator General” was present. It is unclear who this individual is, and whether he or she is employed by the prison or an outside police agency. When Roman discussed being threatened prior to the grand jury presentment, he vaguely identified the sources of those threats as “the authorities.” Similarly, two of the other inmates who submitted affidavits regarding threats did not clearly identify the threateners, referring to them by terms such as “questioner[s].” The other two inmates stated that they were questioned by outside police or the State Police. In response to defendant's motion, the People did not submit any proof regarding who questioned inmates following this incident. Thus, it is unclear whether Roman was threatened by prison officials whose knowledge would not be imputed to the People, or by law enforcement officers affiliated with an outside police agency, such that the People would be duty-bound to disclose any evidence within the knowledge of those officers. Due to this factual question, a hearing is necessary on the second element to establish a Brady viol...
To continue reading
Request your trial