People v. Montgomery
| Decision Date | 07 November 1984 |
| Citation | 103 A.D.2d 622,481 N.Y.S.2d 532 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael MONTGOMERY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Edward J. Nowak, Public Defender, Rochester, for appellant (David Milliken, Rochester, of counsel).
Howard R. Relin, Dist. Atty., Rochester, for respondent (Wendy Lehmann, Rochester, of counsel).
Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, DOERR, DENMAN and O'DONNELL, JJ.
While we affirm this judgment of conviction, we write again to condemn, as forcefully as possible, prosecutorial cross-examination which compels a defendant to state that the police or other witnesses lied in their testimony. In light of the vast number of published judicial decisions criticizing this prosecutorial tactic, it is inconceivable that any prosecutor would be unaware of the impropriety of such conduct. If he is, he fails shamefully in the performance of his public function, as does a superior charged with his training; if he is not, but nevertheless pursues such a course, his conduct raises serious ethical concerns.
Here, the interrogation of the defendant by the prosecutor was patently improper because despite defendant's obvious reluctance to characterize three police officers as liars, the cross-examination was pursued until the defendant finally agreed that each of the named officers was lying. Viewing the record in its entirety, however, it may not be said that the defendant was denied a fair trial. Thus harmless error analysis is appropriate (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787) and, in our view, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and there is no likelihood that a new trial would produce a different result (see People v. Davis, 63 A.D.2d 685, 404 N.Y.S.2d 661).
We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant on appeal and they are either without merit or do not require reversal.
Accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liggett v. People
...(1989) (asking defendant to characterize police officer's testimony as a "lie" is a tactic to be condemned); People v. Montgomery, 103 A.D.2d 622, 481 N.Y.S.2d 532, 532 (1984) ("[W]e write again to condemn, as forcefully as possible, prosecutorial cross-examination which compels a defendant......
-
State v. Leutschaft, No. A07-1844.
...93, 801 P.2d 675, 679 (1990); People v. Adams, 148 A.D.2d 964, 539 N.Y.S.2d 200, 200 (N.Y.App.Div.1989); People v. Montgomery, 103 A.D.2d 622, 481 N.Y.S.2d 532, 532 (N.Y.App.Div.1984); Burgess v. State, 329 S.C. 88, 495 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1998); Mason v. State, 449 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Tex.Crim.App......
-
U.S. v. Scanio, 172
...where the defendant is asked to comment on the testimony of government agents, see, e.g., People v. Montgomery, 103 A.D.2d 622, 481 N.Y.S.2d 532, 532 (4th Dep't 1984) (per curiam) (condemning "prosecutorial cross-examination which compels a defendant to state that the police or other witnes......
-
U.S. v. Sanchez
...which compels a defendant to state that law enforcement officers lied in their testimony is improper. See People v. Montgomery, 103 A.D.2d 622, 481 N.Y.S.2d 532 (1984) (per curiam); People v. Davis, 112 A.D.2d 722, 724, 492 N.Y.S.2d 212 (1985) Id. Similarly, in United States v. Sullivan, 85......
-
Trial practice
...a defendant to characterize the testimony of a prosecution witness, in particular a police officer, as lies. See People v. Montgomery , 481 N.Y.S.2d 532 (1984). It would be improper for the prosecutor to ask the defendant in a drunk driving case to characterize the arresting officer’s state......