People v. Lloyde

• Decision Date: 03 December 1984
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony LLOYDE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 326

482 N.Y.S.2d 326

106 A.D.2d 405

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony LLOYDE, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Dec. 3, 1984.

Albert J. Brackley, Brooklyn, for appellant.

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Susan C. Kramer, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.

Before WEINSTEIN, J.P., and BROWN, RUBIN and EIBER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 10, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

At the conclusion of the defendant's case, he requested the opportunity to call his mother to the stand so that she could testify that it was her decision for him to leave the jurisdiction, since she believed that defendant's life was in danger. The court denied the request because, at the commencement of the trial, defendant's parents had made a choice to attend the trial against the court's order to exclude witnesses. In so ruling, the court ignored the fact that defendant's mother actually only attended the first day of the trial, that she was offering to give testimony only on the limited issue of defendant's flight from the State's jurisdiction, and that no testimony concerning this issue was received during the first day.

While granting an order excluding witnesses from observing the trial is generally within the court's discretion (People v. Cooke, 292 N.Y. 185, 54 N.E.2d 357; People v. Gifford, 2 A.D.2d 634, 151 N.Y.S.2d 980), under the circumstances of this case, the court should have allowed the defendant's mother to testify despite her violation of the order. Defendant had a fundamental right to call witnesses in his own behalf (Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297; People v. Daly, 98 A.D.2d 803, 470 N.Y.S.2d 165; People v. Gilliam, 37 N.Y.2d 722, 374 N.Y.S.2d 616, 337 N.E.2d 129, revg. 45 A.D.2d 744, 356 N.Y.S.2d 663 on dissenting opn of HOPKINS, J.). In the case at bar, defendant's mother would have offered testimony concerning defendant's flight in order to negate an inference of guilt. Although she failed to heed the court's exclusion order, such failure did not render her testimony incompetent, especially when the jury could have considered the fact that she failed to abide by the order as a factor in determining her credibility (People v. Gifford, supra). Furthermore, the prosecutor failed to show how the People would have been prejudiced by having defendant's mother testify (see United States v. Vario, 484 F.2d 1052, cert. den. 414 U.S. 1129, 94 S.Ct. 867, 38 L.Ed.2d 753). Thus, defendant's mother should have been allowed to testify.

However in this case the error was harmless. Although def...