People v. Ochs

• Decision Date: 24 May 1957
• Citation: 3 N.Y.2d 54,163 N.Y.S.2d 671,143 N.E.2d 388
• Parties: , 143 N.E.2d 388 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony OCHS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 671

163 N.Y.S.2d 671

3 N.Y.2d 54, 143 N.E.2d 388

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony OCHS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 24, 1957.

Lloyd L. Rosenthal, Poughkeepsie, for appellant.

Edward S. Silver, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (David Diamond, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

FROESSEL, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of first decree robbery. He does not contend on this appeal that the verdict of guilt is not supported by the evidence, Indeed, there is ample evidence from which a jury could find defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, despite defendant's denial of any connection with the crime.

However, a number of serious errors were committed during the trial, which in our opinion deprived defendant of his fundamental right to a fair trial, and may not be disregarded under the provisions of section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In his charge to the jury, the Trial Judge, after discussing generally the matter of the credibility of witnesses, and after telling them that the defendant is an interested witness as a matter of law continued:

'It has been our experience that persons who have an interest in the case are perhaps less likely to tell the truth or, perhaps, to put it conversely, more likely to color or distort their testimony, or even to lie outright, because on the outcome of the case depends whether or not they are going to be punished. * * *

'I can safely say that it is a matter of experience in the trial of criminal cases, that a person who has been previously convicted of crime is, perhaps, less likely to tell the truth than a person who has had an unblemished record.' (Emphasis supplied.) Defendant duly excepted to these instructions.

This was clearly prejudicial error, particularly where defendant was his sole witness. The jury may of course be told that they may consider, on the issue of credibility, defendant's obvious interest in the outcome of the case and his prior criminal record, and the court did charge appropriately in these respects. But it went much too far in the quoted instructions (People v. Gerdvine, 210 N.Y. 184, 186, 104 N.E 129, 130; People v. Kehoe, 253 App.Div. 762, 300 N.Y.S. 1185, affirmed 278 N.Y. 518, 15 N.E.2d 673; People v. Herman, 255 App.Div. 314, 7 N.Y.S.2d 560; People v. Viscio, 241 App.Div. 499, 502, 272 N.Y.S. 213, 218; see People v. Leavitt, 301 N.Y. 113, 117, 92 N.E.2d 915, 917; People v. Manning, 278 N.Y. 40, 42, 15 N.E.2d 181, 182; People v. Flynn, 275 App.Div. 350, 89 N.Y.S.2d 28).

The Appellate Division, while recognizing error here, affirmed the conviction under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under that section, courts may disregard errors if they are merely technical and do not affect substantial rights. We think the substantial rights of defendant were affected here and that this error may not be disregarded. Of course no exact standard can be laid down which will precisely delineate the boundaries of substantial error. In general, however, an error which tends to blur an important issue and prevent a proper consideration thereof by the jury, or which may have misled the jury and influenced them in reaching their verdict, is an error affecting a substantial right, and may not be disregarded even though the evidence may convince us of the defendant's guilt (People v. Marendi, 213 N.Y. 600, 107 N.E. 1058; People v. Carborano, 301 N.Y. 39, 92 N.E.2d 871; People v. Mleczko, 298 N.Y. 153, 81 N.E.2d 65; People v. Gerdvine, 210 N.Y. 184, 104 N.E. 129, supra).

In the present case, the major issue was that of identification. The determination of this issue depended primarily upon the resolution by the jury of a direct conflict between the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and the testimony of defendant. Defendant relied entirely upon his own testimony which, if but sufficient to create a reasonable doubt, would have entitled him to an acquittal. The outcome of the case thus depended directly upon the decision which the jury made with respect to the credibility of the defendant as opposed to that of the witnesses for the prosecution.

It is with...