People v. McClinton
| Decision Date | 27 May 1980 |
| Citation | 428 N.Y.S.2d 61,75 A.D.2d 900 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Arthur McCLINTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Neil Golden, New York City (Michael Eisenstein, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Beth S. Lasky, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and TITONE, LAZER and GIBBONS, JJ.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 11, 1976, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No issue has been presented with respect to the facts.
The defendant sought to call the arresting officer during the trial as part of his defense. The prosecution asked that an offer of proof be made and asserted that there was nothing to which the officer could testify. The defendant then stated that he desired to show the circumstances surrounding his arrest. Criminal Term denied the defendant's application.
In addition, the defendant sought to call his investigator as a witness on his behalf. Criminal Term required an offer of proof. The defendant's counsel said that the investigator would testify as to statements made by the prosecution's witnesses which were in contradiction of their testimony. Criminal Term denied the right of the defendant to call the witness on the ground that the investigator's testimony would be collateral.
These rulings were error. The right to present evidence by witnesses of one's own choosing is a fundamental ingredient of due process (Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 429, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 1852, 23 L.Ed.2d 404), and the testimony of a defendant's witness should not be prospectively excluded unless it is offered in palpably bad faith . It cannot be said on this record that the defendant was acting in bad faith, although we note that the defendant's behavior during the trial was abusive and sometimes obstreperous. We do not condone such conduct; nevertheless, the defendant was entitled to establish his defense, and he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Slochowsky
...406 N.Y.S.2d 676 and Weinstein, Korn and Miller, supra at pages 23-71). In this regard the court notes the cases of People v. McClinton, 75 A.D.2d 900, 428 N.Y.S.2d 61 leave to appeal denied, 51 N.Y.2d 882, and People v. Forbes, 87 A.D.2d 829, 449 N.Y.S.2d 9. In both those cases the Appella......
-
People v. Daly
...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 the dissenting opn of HOPKINS, J.; People v. McClinton, 75 A.D.2d 900, 428 N.Y.S.2d 61; People v. Forbes, 87 A.D.2d 829, 449 N.Y.S.2d 9). Viewed within this perspective, it was error to preclude the defendant's ......
-
People v. Westergard
...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 the dissenting opn of Hopkins, J.; People v. McClinton, 75 A.D.2d 900, 428 N.Y.S.2d 61)" (People v. Forbes, 87 A.D.2d 829, 449 N.Y.S.2d Notwithstanding this broad language, the right to present evidence by witne......
-
People v. Mullins
...was not a technical or insignificant one; rather, it extended to defendant's very right to establish a defense (see, People v. McClinton, 75 A.D.2d 900, 428 N.Y.S.2d 61). We also note that County Court and the People, who precipitated the error, were fully aware of its significance and of t......