People v. Satterfield

• Citation: 497 N.Y.S.2d 903,66 N.Y.2d 796
• Parties: , 488 N.E.2d 834 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William D. SATTERFIELD, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 12 November 1985
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

Page 903

497 N.Y.S.2d 903

66 N.Y.2d 796, 488 N.E.2d 834

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William D. SATTERFIELD, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 12, 1985.

Lisabeth Harrison and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Andrew J. Turro and Amyjane Rettew, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 104 A.D.2d 1063, 481 N.Y.S.2d 842, should be affirmed.

Defendant's appeal, based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, challenges the denial of his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 without a hearing. The People's principal witness at defendant's murder trial was Oliver Anderson. Anderson testified that he and his brother, Jeremiah Johnson, were in an argument with two men when one of them--identified by him as defendant--drew a pistol and shot Johnson, who staggered and collapsed as Anderson tried to hold him. During cross-examination, defendant's counsel elicited that Anderson had spoken with the police a number of times after the shooting, but he could recall neither the name of any officer nor what he had said.

The principal defense was misidentification. Defense counsel called Police Officer Earl Robinson, who had interviewed Anderson following the shooting, and attempted through him to introduce his report, which stated that Anderson told him he had "walked around the corner on 8th Avenue for cigarettes. He heard shots, he returned and his brother staggered into his arms shot twice in the chest. No witness." The trial court, however, sustained the People's objection to admission of the report because counsel had failed to lay sufficient foundation when Anderson was on the stand. The court explained that the necessary foundation required asking a witness sought to be impeached whether he had made such statements, the time and place, the person to whom made, and the substance of the language used. Defense counsel then called Cindy Williams, who testified that while standing on the street she heard and saw four men talking loudly, heard a shot, then saw one of the men grab his chest and stagger. Williams testified that defendant, an acquaintance, was not one of the four men, and she did not see him anywhere in the area. On cross-examination, Williams testified that the man who was shot fell to his knees, and that another of the four men immediately went to the victim's aid.

The court granted defense counsel's application to recall both Anderson and Robinson, believing that defendant's failure to lay a foundation for admission of the report had been an oversight. However, the next trial day, defense counsel stated that after consultation with defendant and his parents, the decision had been made to withdraw the application to recall the witnesses, and defendant himself acknowledged this on the record. In summation, defense counsel urged that Anderson had made an honest mistake in identifying defendant as the shooter. He pointed out that in every detail but one Anderson's testimony confirmed Williams'--Anderson, who did not know defendant at the time of the shooting, identified defendant as the shooter, whereas Williams, who did know him, was certain defendant was not even there.

After defendant's conviction he moved for an order pursuant to CPL 440.10 vacating the judgment on the ground that he had been denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. In support of the motion defendant submitted his own affidavit as well as those of his parents, who stated in substance that they had reluctantly agreed with counsel based primarily on his opinion that the evidence strongly favored defendant and that the impeachment evidence, if permitted, was only marginally helpful. Also annexed was the affidavit of defendant's new counsel, relating the substance of a telephone conversation with trial counsel, in which he offered three reasons for his decision: first, that the court would not have allowed him to impeach Anderson with the report, since the report indicated only "No witness," not that Anderson had made any such statements to Officer Robinson; second, that putting on additional witnesses would have diluted the strongly favorable testimony of the witnesses who had appeared immediately prior to summation; and finally, that the report was inconsistent with the Williams'...