People v. Stafford
| Decision Date | 31 May 1977 |
| Citation | 57 A.D.2d 965,395 N.Y.S.2d 69 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Tercero STAFFORD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Steven A. Greenwold, Poughkeepsie, for appellant.
John R. King, Dist. Atty., Poughkeepsie (Bridget R. Rahilly, Poughkeepsie, of counsel), for respondent.
Before COHALAN, J. P., and DAMIANI, RABIN and TITONE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered May 27, 1976, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered.
The key witnesses against defendant were Henry and Greenfield. The former, who had actually attacked the victim of the robbery and whose gun had discharged, firing the fatal bullet, stated that while defendant had been in his company throughout much of that day, and had been behind the wheel of the "get-away" car parked a block or so away, defendant had not known about the robbery and was not an accomplice to it. (Henry had already pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree with regard to this incident.) Greenfield, who also had been in the company of Henry throughout much of the same time period, stated that defendant was a knowing participant in the robbery. (Greenfield was granted total immunity in this case in return for his testimony against defendant and others involved in the crime.) The trial court instructed the jury that both Greenfield and Henry were accomplices as a matter of law (and later as a matter of fact). Defense counsel excepted to this charge, on the ground that it was tantamount to an instruction to the jury to disregard a chief defense contention, viz., that Greenfield's testimony was a fabrication created to convince the District Attorney that it was worthwhile to grant him immunity in exchange for his testimony against the others. Defendant contended that Greenfield was no more an accomplice than he had been.
Defendant is correct on this point, and the error of the learned trial court on this matter may well have dealt a heavy blow to defendant's case. Only where it is uncontroverted that a witness was an accomplice to a crime may the jury be instructed, as a matter of law, that the witness is an accomplice (see People v. Basch, 36 N.Y.2d 154, 157, 365 N.Y.S.2d 836, 838, 325 N.E.2d 156, 158). Here Henry's testimony supports the contention of defendant that Greenfield...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Konigsberg
...to the jury ( see, People v. Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624, 630, 376 N.Y.S.2d 436, 339 N.E.2d 139, supra ). The case of People v. Stafford, 57 A.D.2d 965, 395 N.Y.S.2d 69), relied upon by defendant, is distinguishable. There, reversal was required because of the court's bold directive: "if you fin......
-
People v. De Vyver
...determination (see People v. Fiore, 12 N.Y.2d 188, 201-202, 237 N.Y.S.2d 698, 188 N.E.2d 130). Defendant's reliance on People v. Stafford, 57 A.D.2d 965, 395 N.Y.S.2d 69 is misplaced, since there a combination of errors regarding accomplice testimony was found to have unduly prejudiced the ......
-
People v. Velasquez
...and effectively limited the scope of consideration and deprived the jury of its full fact-finding powers. (See, People v. Stafford, 57 A.D.2d 965, 966, 395 N.Y.S.2d 69.) So imperative is the statute that "[w]hen an accomplice is the People's principal witness, a faulty accomplice charge can......
-
Chambers v. State
...defendant and then has been granted immunity does not necessarily establish that he or she is an accomplice."); People v. Stafford, 57 A.D.2d 965, 395 N.Y.S.2d 69, 70 (1977) ("Only where it is uncontroverted that a witness was an accomplice.") (citation omitted); People v. Basch, 36 N.Y.2d ......