People v. Milano
| Decision Date | 10 November 1977 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Peter MILANO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
T. J. McGinn, New York City, for respondent.
D. S. Hillman, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before MURPHY, P. J., and KUPFERMAN, SILVERMAN and CAPOZZOLI, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on January 26, 1976, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial directed.
In our opinion the defendant was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's improper cross-examination of an alibi witness and, in particular, by his persistent improper efforts to discredit such witness, the clear purport of which was to implant in the jurors' minds the proposition that the witness was unworthy of belief because he had failed to promptly divulge the subject matter of his alibi testimony to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.
The defendant's father, who had been a police officer, testified as an alibi witness for his son. The prosecutor, on cross-examination of this witness, inquired into his reactions to prior arrests of his son and then, over objections which were sustained by the Court, he attempted to suggest that, had the witness revealed his son's alibi at the time of the arrest, the charges against defendant would have been dropped. As indicated, the Court sustained objections to this line of questioning. We find, at p. 254 of the trial minutes, the following:
The only inference the jury could draw from such tactics was that the defendant was guilty because his father had failed to immediately disclose the alibi, especially when the prosecutor emphasized this theme in his summation to the jury.
In People v. Hamlin, 58 A.D.2d 631 at p. 632, 395 N.Y.S.2d 679, 681 the Court stated:
" * * * no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Paradis
...Asher v. Commonwealth, 324 S.W.2d 824 (Ky.1959); McDowell v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 530, 155 S.W.2d 377 (1941); People v. Milano, 59 App.Div.2d 852, 399 N.Y.S.2d 226 (1977); United States v. Gurney, 418 F.Supp. 1265 (D.C.Fla.1976); People v. Ulrich, 30 Ill.2d 94, 195 N.E.2d 180 (1963); People......
-
People v. Dinkins
...to disclose such information to law enforcement officials (see, People v. Maschi, 65 A.D.2d 405, 411 N.Y.S.2d 298; People v. Milano, 59 A.D.2d 852, 399 N.Y.S.2d 226; People v. Clark, 64 A.D.2d 669, 407 N.Y.S.2d 236; People v. Smoot, 59 A.D.2d 898, 399 N.Y.S.2d 133; People v. Hamlin, 58 A.D.......
-
People v. Dawson
...691, affd. on other grounds 48 N.Y.2d 921, 425 N.Y.S.2d 54, 401 N.E.2d 177; but see People v. Nolasco, 70 A.D.2d 549; People v. Milano, 59 A.D.2d 852, 399 N.Y.S.2d 226). A similar approach has been adopted in the Fourth Department (People v. Knox, 71 A.D.2d 41, 421 N.Y.S.2d 992; People v. K......
-
People v. Colarco
...the issue has been frequently litigated in this court and in the Appellate Division, Second Department. See (First Department) People v. Milano, 59 A.D.2d 852, 399 N.Y.S.2d 226; People v. Brown, 62 A.D.2d 715, 405 N.Y.S.2d 691; People v. Maschi, 65 A.D.2d 405, 411 N.Y.S.2d 298; People v. Bu......