People v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 11 July 1986
• Docket Number: No. 2,2
• Citation: 122 A.D.2d 606,505 N.Y.S.2d 393
• Parties: , 122 A.D.2d 608 PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ricky STEPHENS, Appellant. Appeal
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 393

505 N.Y.S.2d 393

122 A.D.2d 606, 122 A.D.2d 608

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ricky STEPHENS, Appellant. Appeal No. 2.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

July 11, 1986

Edward Z. Menkin, Syracuse, for appellant. Richard Hennessy by John Cirando, Syracuse, for respondent.

Judgment affirmed. Same Memorandum as in People v. Ricky Stephens, Appeal No. 1, 122 A.D.2d 606, 505 N.Y.S.2d 280.

All concur, except GREEN, J., who dissents and votes to reverse and dismiss indictment, in the following Memorandum:

While I agree that defendant's robbery conviction must be affirmed, I write separately to express my views regarding the perjury conviction and the prosecution on which that conviction was based. Whether conduct on the part of the prosecutor is so outrageous as to violate a defendant's right to due process of law necessarily is a question of degree (see, Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 162, 71 S.Ct. 624, 643, 95 L.Ed. 817 [Frankfurter, J., concurring] ). But "there comes a time when enough is more than enough--it is just too much" (Williamson v. United States, 311 F.2d 441, 445 [Brown, J., concurring] ) and, in my view, this is such a case. To sanction the perjury prosecution in this case would be paying mere lip service to the principle of due process of law (People v. Isaccson, 44 N.Y.2d 511, 523, 406 N.Y.S.2d 714, 378 N.E.2d 78). The fact that defendant's perjury conviction resulted from his guilty plea does not prevent this court, in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15[3][c] ), from reaching defendant's claim that his right to due process of law was violated by the prosecution of the perjury indictment because the right asserted is of constitutional dimension and questions the very integrity of the grand jury process (see, People v. Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1, 5, 489 N.Y.S.2d 152, 478 N.E.2d 755; People v Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97, 105-107, 476 N.Y.S.2d 79, 464 N.E.2d 447; People v. Rao, 73 A.D.2d 88, 98, 425 N.Y.S.2d 122).

Defendant was prosecuted for perjury based upon his testimony at a suppression hearing in which he successfully suppressed a statement he gave to the police. Defendant's claim at the suppression hearing was that his statement was the product of physical coercion and police brutality. Defendant testified that immediately following his arrest on the robbery charge, the arresting officers hit and kicked him in the stomach and groin, struck him on the head with a padded piece of leather and repeatedly hit him with a billy club. As a result of these beatings, defendant suffered loss of a tooth, facial scars and severe pain. The hearing court found defendant's testimony credible and suppressed defendant's statement on the ground that it was not freely and voluntarily given. Of course, perjury is a serious crime and the fact that perjury may occur during the exercise of a defendant's right to suppress evidence does not excuse the crime. However, as in the instant case, when a defendant's credibility is tested before an experienced hearing court and measured against objective evidence of physical injury as well as the credibility of the arresting officers, and a decision is rendered in defendant's favor and his motion to suppress is granted, a subsequent prosecution for perjury based on the defendant's suppression hearing testimony suggests to me that the perjury indictment was the result of prosecutorial vindictiveness. In his motion papers and at the hearing, defendant made no claim that he was deprived of his right to counsel. Nevertheless, some three months after the suppression hearing and prior to trial on the robbery indictment, the prosecutor indicted defendant for perjury. This indictment was based upon selective excerpts of defendant's suppression hearing testimony involving defendant's responses to cross examination by the prosecutor on the extraneous issues of defendant's familiarity with his Miranda rights and the administration of the Miranda warnings during the period when, as the hearing court found, he was physically beaten. At the time the perjury indictment was sought, the prosecution was well aware that the basis of the hearing court's decision granting defendant's suppression motion was the fact that his statement was involuntary, not that it was unknowing or made in the...