People v. McDowell
Decision Date | 12 January 1961 |
Citation | 172 N.E.2d 279,9 N.Y.2d 12,210 N.Y.S.2d 514 |
Parties | , 172 N.E.2d 279 PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David McDOWELL, Appellant. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Abraham Ziegler, Syracuse, for appellant.
Arthur W. Wilson, Dist. Atty., Syracuse (John L. Butz, Syracuse, of counsel), for respondent.
The judgment convicting defendant of assault in the second degree must be reversed because of the erroneous exclusion of evidence which is competent, relevant and material to the issues.
The excluded evidence dealt with defendant's reputation for peacefulness in the community in which he resided, and the alleged hostility of the complaining witness.
(Richardson, Evidence (8th ed.), § 154; 7 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 1981.) Although the attempts of defense counsel to introduce the evidence were lacking in legal preciseness, they nevertheless corresponded to methods generally aproved (Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168; People v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N.Y. 408, 82 N.E. 718, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 650; 7 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 1983) and deserved the approval of the trial court. Objections to the exclusion of character evidence cannot be taken lightly. 'This court has frequently stated that evidence of good character is a matter of substance; (sic) not of form, in criminal cases, and must be considered by the jury as bearing upon the issue of guilt, even when the evidence against the defendant may be very convincing.' People v. Colantone, 243 N.Y. 134, 136, 152 N.E. 700, 701; People v. O'Regan, 221 App.Div. 331, 223 N.Y.S. 339. Indeed the value of such testimony is pointed up by our rule as to the effect of evidence of good character. People v. Trimarchi, 231 N.Y. 263, 131 N.E. 910; see, also, People v. Johnson, 5 N.Y.2d 1000, 184 N.Y.S.2d 861. The prejudice here suffered by the defendant as a result of the exclusion of the character evidence entitles him to a new trial.
An additional error was committed by the trial court in refusing to allow testimony offered by defendant which tended to make apparent the hostility of the complaining witness. Defense counsel gave the correct reason for admission of such testimony when he stated: The rule is settled in this state, by repeated decisions of this court, that the hostility of a witness toward a party, against whom he is called, may be proved by any competent evidence. As it was stated in People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Hudy
...A trial court may not exclude all such evidence, but it may, in its discretion, limit its quantity (see, People v. McDowell, 9 N.Y.2d 12, 15, 210 N.Y.S.2d 514, 172 N.E.2d 279). Here, the witnesses that defendant sought to impeach with the proffered evidence admitted on cross-examination tha......
-
People v. Thomas
...excluded this proof at every turn. As I see it this constituted an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (People v. McDowell, 9 N.Y.2d 12, 15, 210 N.Y.S. 514, 172 N.E.2d 279; Richardson, Evidence (10th ed), §§ 503, 504; 3A Wigmore, Evidence (Chadbourn rev, 1970) § 950). I would find nothin......
-
Wynn v. United States, 20723.
...238 Iowa 237, 26 N.W.2d 422, 425 (1947); State v. Pontery, 19 N.J. 457, 117 A.2d 473, 480-481 (1955); People v. McDowell, 9 N.Y.2d 12, 210 N.Y.S.2d 514, 172 N.E.2d 279, 280 (1961); State v. Goff, 79 S.D. 138, 109 N.W.2d 256, 258 9 Villaroman v. United States, supra note 5, 87 U.S.App.D.C. a......
-
United States v. Haggett
...hostility, we do not believe that he may as was done below, exclude all such evidence for that purpose. People v. McDowell, 9 N.Y.2d 12, 210 N.Y.S.2d 514, 172 N.E.2d 279 (1961); see People v. Lustig, 206 N.Y. 162, 172, 99 N.E. 183, 186 Although the holding that error was thus committed requ......