People v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 26 October 1987
• Citation: 520 N.Y.S.2d 415,133 A.D.2d 859
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Henry ROBINSON and Mottis Craig, Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 415

520 N.Y.S.2d 415

133 A.D.2d 859

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Henry ROBINSON and Mottis Craig, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Oct. 26, 1987.

Robert J. Bloom, New York City, for appellant Henry Robinson and Robert J. Boyle, Brooklyn, N.Y. for appellant Mottis Craig (one brief filed).

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Gary Fidel, of counsel), for respondent.

Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, KOOPER and SULLIVAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeals by the defendants from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.), both rendered April 20, 1982, as amended November 3, 1982, as to Henry Robinson, and November 5, 1982, as to Mottis Craig, convicting them of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (three counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences, and by permission, from an order of the same court, dated February 12, 1986, which, after a hearing, denied their motion to vacate the judgments, as amended, pursuant to CPL 440.10.

ORDERED, that the order dated February 12, 1986, is reversed, on the law, the defendants' motion to vacate the judgments, as amended, is granted, the judgments, as amended, are vacated, a Wade hearing is directed with respect to the witness Nixon's identification of the defendant Craig, and a new trial is ordered; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeals from the judgments, as amended, are dismissed as academic, in light of the determination of the appeals from the order.

We find that based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing held in connection with the defendants' postjudgment motion (CPL 440.10), the prosecution did violate the defendants' constitutional right to be informed of exculpatory information known to the State (see, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215), as well as the defendants' statutory right to be provided with prior written or recorded statements made by prosecution witnesses (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, rearg denied 9 N.Y.2d 908, 216 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 176 N.E.2d 111, cert. denied 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L. Ed.2d 64, rearg denied 14 N.Y.2d 876, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 200 N.E.2d 784, rearg denied 15 N.Y.2d 765, 257 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 205 N.E.2d 538; CPL 240.45).

Specifically, it was established that during the investigation of the crimes of which the defendants stand convicted, the police obtained a statement from a certain individual who directly implicated three men other than the defendants as the perpetrators. Even if the prosecution had valid reasons to consider this witness to be unreliable, it should nonetheless have provided the defense with this important exculpatory information which was clearly Brady material (see, People v. Fein, 18 N.Y.2d 162, 172, 272 N.Y.S.2d 753, 219 N.E.2d 274, app. dism. and cert. denied 385 U.S. 649, 87 S.Ct. 766, 17 L.Ed.2d 688). Additionally, we note that that individual provided the defendants with an affidavit supporting their postjudgment motion and presumably would have been willing to testify on their behalf at the trial.

The Court of Appeals has adopted the rule announced in United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 that "constitutional error occurs only if the evidence which was not disclosed was material in the sense that 'there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different' " (see, People v. Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22, 33, 499 N.Y.S.2d 638, 490 N.E.2d 505 quoting from United States v. Bagley, supra, at 682, 105 S.Ct. at 3384 [emphasis added]; see also, People v. Alongi, 131 A.D.2d 767, 516 N.Y.S.2d 794). In the present case, there were three witnesses who identified the defendants as the perpetrators, two of whom had seen them on prior occasions. In addition, another witness for the prosecution testified as to having overheard the defendants discussing their participation in the crime shortly after the event. Nevertheless, we find that there is a reasonable probability that the result herein would have been different if the jury had heard testimony from a witness who, in effect, would have identified three other men as the actual perpetrators. At the very least, the defendants in this case, who were evidently unaware that this witness had given such exculpatory information, were "deprived of the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding the trial strategy that would have been in [their] best interests to pursue" (People v. Smith, 127 A.D.2d 864, 866, 512 N.Y.S.2d 244).

In addition to the Brady violation, the evidence also showed that the prosecution failed to satisfy its obligations imposed pursuant to CPL 240.45, which codified the rule of People v. Rosario (supra ). For example, the People did not turn over certain reports concerning an identifying...