People v. McLucas
Citation | 256 N.Y.S.2d 799,204 N.E.2d 846,15 N.Y.2d 167 |
Parties | , 204 N.E.2d 846 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert McLUCAS, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 11 February 1965 |
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Stuart M. Pearis, Binghampton, for appellant.
Aaron E. Koota, Dist. Atty. (William I. Siegel, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Defendant appealed from a unanimous no-opinion affirmance of a judgment sentencing him on a conviction of burglary third degree.
We reverse because we accept defendant's argument that his privilege against self-incrimination was violated by the trial court's remarks concerning his failure to take the witness stand. A police officer testified that about five months after the alleged crime he arrested defendant in a subway station in Brooklyn. Without objection on direct examination the officer swore that at the time of the arrest he asked defendant where the latter had been since the alleged burglary and that defendant 'said that he knew the police were looking for him and that he did not go home * * * that he had been in various parts of New Jersey and Connecticut'. On cross the policeman was again asked about this conversation and added that defendant had denied that he had committed the crime but had then remarked that he knew he would be accused and did not want to be accused of something he had not done. This denial of guilt properly came into evidence as part of a conversation previously testified to (see People v. Gallo, 12 N.Y.2d 12, 15-16, 234 N.Y.S.2d 193, 195-196, 186 N.E.2d 399, 400-401).
During his charge to the jury the court said this: Later on in the charge the court told the jury that defendant had not testified but that this 'must not create any unfavorable inference or presumption against him' and was not evidence of guilt.
We hold that the first above-quoted instructions were seriously erroneous and prejudicial. Properly in the case was testimony from the officer that defendant had denied guilt. Yet the court without request from anyone twice volunteered the statement that such a statement by defendant did 'not take the place of sworn testimony from this witness chair'. That was an improper reference to his failure to take the stand, of the same kind and the same prejudicial effect as those described in People v. Minkowitz, 220 N.Y. 399, 115 N.E. 987; People v. Leavitt, 301 N.Y. 113, 92 N.E.2d 915; People v. Hetenyi, 304 N.Y. 80, 106 N.E.2d 20 and other similar decisions. True, the Trial Judge later charged the law as in section 393 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the trouble was that he had already committed reversible error by his earlier remarks in this connection. This court long ago warned that 'In the trial of a criminal case it can never be necessary to add anything to the plain and simple language of the statute', that any statement of a Trial Judge which tends to deprive a defendant of the full protection of the statute is reversible error and that the force of the constitutional protection is not to be weakened by qualifying words (see People v. Fitzgerald, 156 N.Y. 253, 266, 50 N.E....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
v. Allen
...policy that allows review of unobjected-to errors that affect "a fundamental constitutional right." People v. McLucas, 15 N.Y.2d 167, 172, 256 N.Y.S.2d 799, 204 N.E.2d 846, 848 (1965). Accord, People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663, 239 N.E.2d 537 (1968); People v. DeRenzzio, 19 ......
-
Brown v. Greiner
...786, 469 N.Y.S.2d 680 (1983); People v. Patterson, 39 N.Y.2d 288, 347 N.E.2d 898, 383 N.Y.S.2d 573 (1976); People v. McLucas, 15 N.Y.2d 167, 204 N.E.2d 846, 256 N.Y.S.2d 799 (1965). The Court of Appeals found that the exception did not apply because Rosen had not demonstrated entitlement to......
-
Street v. New York
...that an issue be raised in the trial court with greater specificity than occurred h re. In fact, in People v. McLucas, 15 N.Y.2d 167, 172, 256 N.Y.S.2d 799, 204 N.E.2d 846, 848 (1965), the New York Court of Appeals held that when an appellant claims 'deprivation of a funda- mental constitut......
-
People v. Udzinski
... ... It is conceded that defense counsel did not object or except to the Trial Judge's definition of the term "forcible compulsion" in its jury charge. Citing People v. McLucas, 15 N.Y.2d 167, 256 N.Y.S.2d 799, 204 N.E.2d 846, People v. Grega, 132 A.D.2d 749, 517 N.Y.S.2d 105, mod. 72 N.Y.2d 489, 534 N.Y.S.2d 647, 531 N.E.2d 279, People v. Rubin, 101 A.D.2d 71, 77, 474 N.Y.S.2d 348, and People v. Gray, 71 A.D.2d 295, 423 N.Y.S.2d 66, the defendant argues that a question ... ...