People v. Macana

• Decision Date: 05 July 1994
• Citation: 84 N.Y.2d 173,615 N.Y.S.2d 656,639 N.E.2d 13
• Parties: , 639 N.E.2d 13 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark MACANA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 656

615 N.Y.S.2d 656

84 N.Y.2d 173, 639 N.E.2d 13

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark MACANA, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 5, 1994.

[84 N.Y.2d 174] Miriam J. Hibel and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for appellant.

[84 N.Y.2d 175] Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty. of Queens County, Kew Gardens (Jonathan Leinheardt and Steven J. Chananie, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

LEVINE, Justice.

Defendant appeals from the Appellate Division's affirmance of his conviction in the Supreme Court, Queens County, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, 193 A.D.2d 702, 598 N.Y.S.2d 46. Defendant was arrested on August 2, 1990, when a number of police officers responded to a radio report of shots fired in the vicinity of defendant's residence in Queens. Three of the responding officers testified at defendant's trial. According to their testimony, upon arriving at the defendant's home, the officers observed what appeared to be bullet holes in a window screen and the garage door, and a spent round was recovered next to the house. Defendant then gave the officers consent to enter the house. While the officers were inside, they observed defendant reaching toward a pile of clothes on a table. As one officer stopped defendant's movement, another officer sifted through the clothes and discovered a .45 caliber pistol. The officer who actually physically recovered the pistol from under the pile of clothes did not testify at trial.

The theory of the defense was that defendant was in temporary and lawful possession of the pistol (see, People v. Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 1043, 431 N.Y.S.2d 698, 409 N.E.2d 1372). In support, defendant testified as follows. The pistol belonged to his father, who also lived in the same house. His father was totally blind and suffered from serious depression, and had expressed a desire to kill himself the night before defendant's arrest. The next day, after hearing gunshots in the kitchen and finding his father holding the pistol, defendant took the gun from his father and hid it in a hutch in the living room. Defendant's brother came to the house and took their father to his home before the police arrived and found the pistol secreted in the hutch. Defendant, however, did not call or subpoena his father as a witness to confirm the foregoing version of his temporary, innocent possession of the gun.

Upon the People's request, the trial court granted a missing witness charge against defendant based upon his failure to call his father as a witness, notwithstanding defense counsel's contention that the father, if called, would probably have to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court, however, declined defendant's request for a missing witness charge regarding the officer who actually recovered the pistol. Defendant appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed (193 A.D.2d 702, 598 N.Y.S.2d 46), concluding that because defendant's father was not called or subpoenaed by the defense, the missing witness charge was properly granted to the People. A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal and we now affirm.

Defendant's primary contention on this appeal is that the trial court erred in granting a missing witness charge as to defendant's father. Defendant's essential position is that a missing witness charge should not be given with respect to an uncalled defense witness in any case where the witness' potential testimony could be self-incriminating, such that the witness might invoke his or her Fifth Amendment privilege.

Although a court may not ordinarily comment on a defendant's failure to testify or otherwise come forward with evidence at trial, it is by now well settled that once a defendant does so, the customary standards for giving a missing witness charge apply (see, People v. Wilson, 64 N.Y.2d 634, 635-636, 485 N.Y.S.2d 40, 474 N.E.2d 248; People v. Rodriguez, 38 N.Y.2d 95, 98, 378 N.Y.S.2d 665, 341 N.E.2d 231; see also, Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121, 14 S.Ct. 40, 41, 37 L.Ed. 1021). As set forth in People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583, the party seeking the missing witness charge must sustain an initial burden of showing that the opposing party has failed to call a witness who could be expected to have knowledge regarding a material issue in the case and to provide testimony favorable to the opposing party (id., at 427-428, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583; see also, People v. Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532, 536-537, 577 N.Y.S.2d 231, 583 N.E.2d 944). The burden then shifts to the opposing party, in order to defeat the request, "to account for the witness' absence or otherwise demonstrate that the charge would not be appropriate. This burden can be met by demonstrating that the witness is not knowledgeable about the issue, that the issue is not material or relevant, that although the issue is material or relevant, the testimony would be cumulative to other evidence, that the witness is not 'available', or that the witness is not under the party's 'control' such that he would not be expected to testify in his or her favor" (People v. Gonzalez, supra, 68 N.Y.2d at 428, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583; see, People v. Kitching, supra, 78 N.Y.2d at 537, 577 N.Y.S.2d 231, 583 N.E.2d 944).

In the instant case, the People made an adequate prima facie showing, based upon defendant's own testimony, that his father was knowledgeable about a material issue in the case, i.e., whether defendant's possession of the weapon was innocent and lawful. It was also established that this missing witness could be expected to testify favorably to defendant (see, People v. Rodriguez, supra, 38 N.Y.2d at 98, n. 1, 378 N.Y.S.2d 665, 341 N.E.2d 231 ["A spouse or relative is perforce deemed to be under the defendant's control"]. Accordingly, the burden shifted to defendant to account for the witness' absence or to otherwise demonstrate that the charge would be inappropriate. The only showing made by defendant to counter the People's request was defense counsel's unsubstantiated statement that the father would probably have to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if called to testify.

In People v. Rodriguez, we recognized that if the uncalled witness were a codefendant likely to invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify, a missing witness charge against the defense would be inappropriate (supra, at 100, 378 N.Y.S.2d 665, 341 N.E.2d 231). The same rule extends to uncalled accomplices, even if uncharged (see, 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence § 88, at 275 [14th ed. 1985]. The reasons underlying this exception are: (1) that the witness' probable invocation of the privilege casts into doubt one of the requisite preconditions of the missing witness inference, that the uncalled witness would likely testify favorably to the party opposing the charge (see, United States v. Pitts, 918 F.2d 197, 200 [D.C.Cir.]; (2) that such a witness must be deemed "unavailable" to the opponent of the charge (see, Lawson v. United States, 514 A.2d 787, 791-792 [D.C.Ct.App.]); and (3) the concern that the witness' invocation of the privilege on the stand might result in undue prejudice to the defendant (see, United States v. Pitts, supra, at 200; Christensen v. State, 274 Md. 133, 140, 333 A.2d 45, 49).

The dispositive issue on this point is whether, in order to avoid a missing witness charge, defendant was required to verify that his father's material testimony would have been self-incriminating and that he would likely have invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. One eminent authority has suggested that such verification should be required in all cases: "the witness should at least have been summoned and asked, for he may waive the privilege" (2 Wigmore, Evidence § 286, at 201 [Chadbourn rev 1979].

Nonetheless, there are instances where the prosecution's own evidence establishes the existence of the witness and his or her involvement in the criminal activity for which the defendant is on trial. Because the undisputable inference in such circumstances would clearly be that the material testimony of that witness would likely be incriminating and that the witness would refuse to testify, further verification would be unnecessary. And the cases, generally involving uncalled accomplices, so hold (see, e.g., United States v. Pitts, supra; Lawson v. United States, supra; Christensen v. State, supra; State v. Cavness, 46 Haw. 470, 381 P.2d 685).

Additional safeguards should, however, be required when the defendant is the only source of proof of either the existence of the uncalled witness or that favorable testimony of that witness would be self-incriminating. In such circumstances, the possibility of incurring an unfavorable missing witness charge would be a significant deterrent against a fabricated defense version, shifting criminal responsibility to the uncalled witness. Charges of illegal possession of contraband are particularly amenable to such a defense stratagem. Thus, although Maryland does not require verification in denying a missing witness charge when the uncalled witness is a known, acknowledged accomplice (see, Christensen v. State, 274 Md. 133, 333 A.2d 45, supra), that State's highest court has required verification in a criminal possession of a stolen vehicle case when the "[uncalled witness'] existence and his involvement in this case were not demonstrated by any evidence other than the testimony of the defendant", explaining that "[i]t is not uncommon for one found in exclusive possession of recently stolen property to fabricate a story involving another person as the provider of the property--some person often said to be known only by a street name, who supposedly gave, sold, or loaned the property to the defendant under the most innocent of circumstances" (Robinson v. State, 315 Md. 309, 317, 554 A.2d 395, 399...