People v. Spencer

• Decision Date: 13 December 2012
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andrew SPENCER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

20 N.Y.3d 954
982 N.E.2d 1245
959 N.Y.S.2d 112
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08567

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Andrew SPENCER, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 13, 2012.

[959 N.Y.S.2d 113]

Law Offices of Randall D. Unger, Bayside (Randall D. Unger of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Sharon Y. Brodt and John M. Castellano of counsel), for respondent.

[20 N.Y.3d 955]OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.

[982 N.E.2d 1246]The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

A Queens County grand jury charged defendant with one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and other related charges. At defendant's jury trial, the People adduced evidence that on the evening of August 16, 2006, defendant engaged in a street level altercation with a third party. Shortly thereafter, complainant, an off-duty police officer, arrived at the scene. Complainant and a number of other eyewitnesses testified that defendant punched complainant and brandished a firearm. Complainant ordered defendant to surrender his firearm, which was loaded. In addition to the eyewitness testimony, Supreme Court permitted the People to introduce into evidence the recordings of two 911 calls contemporaneously placed at the time of the incident.

[959 N.Y.S.2d 114]

[982 N.E.2d 1247]Defendant interposed a defense, claiming that complainant had falsely implicated him and that it was the third party who [20 N.Y.3d 956]possessed the firearm. Defendant sought to establish that complainant had a motive to frame defendant because complainant and the third party were close friends. Specifically, defendant wished to testify that, based on firsthand knowledge, complainant permitted the third party to deal drugs in front of his home and that complainant and the third party drag raced cars together. Supreme Court precluded this evidence on the ground that the proposed testimony was “collateral.”

The jury convicted defendant of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and Supreme Court imposed a 15–year determinate sentence of imprisonment followed by five years of postrelease supervision. On appeal, the Appellate Division agreed with defendant that the proof he wished to elicit “should not have been excluded on the basis that it was collateral, as such exclusion goes directly to the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense” ( People v. Spencer, 87 A.D.3d 751, 752, 928 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2d Dept.2011] )....