People v. Murray
| Decision Date | 12 January 1981 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John MURRAY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Elaine T. Stogel, New York City, of counsel), for appellant and appellant pro se.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Barry A. Schwartz, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.
Before TITONE, J. P., and GIBBONS, MARGETT and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeals by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, both rendered May 19, 1977, each convicting him, inter alia, of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.
Cases remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith, and appeals held in abeyance in the interim. Criminal Term is to file its report with all convenient speed.
Assailing the voluntariness of defendant's confessions, defendant and his codefendant testified at a Huntley hearing that the statements had resulted from threats by the interrogating officer to shoot him if he did not confess. These allegations had been denied by the officer and upon the completion of the testimony of the two defense witnesses, defense counsel requested permission to produce three witnesses who would testify to prearrest statements by the police concerning what they might do to defendant if he refused to testify. The court denied defendant's application and ultimately held the confessions to be voluntary.
This was error. Defendant's right to produce witnesses in support of his defense is fundamental and absent a showing of bad faith an application to produce witnesses whose testimony would be relevant to the defense should not be denied . In Stokes v. People, 53 N.Y. 164, 174-175, the Court of Appeals held that evidence of the deceased's prior threat to kill the accused was competent upon the question of whether he in fact had made the attempt, an issue central to the accused's defense of justification. By analogy, defendant's proffered testimony in the case at bar was competent upon the issue of whether the confession had in fact been coerced. The weight of this testimony is for the trier of fact to resolve, but only after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Daly
...v. Gilliam, supra; People v. Forbes, 87 A.D.2d 829, 449 N.Y.S.2d 9; People v. Rojas, 83 A.D.2d 594, 441 N.Y.S.2d 117; People v. Murray, 79 A.D.2d 993, 434 N.Y.S.2d 720; People v. Boone, 78 A.D.2d 461, 435 N.Y.S.2d 268; People v. McClinton, 75 A.D.2d 900, 428 N.Y.S.2d 61; People v. Cuevas, 6......
-
People v. Westergard
...once a witness takes the stand, to rule on questions of admissibility upon proper objection (People v. Gilliam, supra; People v. Murray, 79 A.D.2d 993, 434 N.Y.S.2d 720; People v. Hepburn, 52 A.D.2d 958, 383 N.Y.S.2d 626). In the instant case, the trial court did not preclude defendant from......
-
People v. Barnes
...lived together in another apartment previously. (Also, see generally People v. Daly, 98 A.D.2d 803, 470 N.Y.S.2d 165; People v. Murray, 79 A.D.2d 993, 434 N.Y.S.2d 720; People v. Baker, 54 A.D.2d 876, 387 N.Y.S.2d 129.) And in People v. Gilliam, 37 N.Y.2d 722, 374 N.Y.S.2d 616, 337 N.E.2d 1......
-
People v. Strzelecki
...faith, an application to produce witnesses whose testimony would be relevant to the defense should not be denied” ( People v. Murray, 79 A.D.2d 993, 994, 434 N.Y.S.2d 720;see People v. Taylor, 40 A.D.3d 782, 783–784, 835 N.Y.S.2d 442). However, a trial court may, in its discretion, exclude ......