People v. Testaverde
Decision Date | 15 August 1988 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Gennaro TESTAVERDE, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Carol A. Zeldin, of counsel), for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Richard T. Faughnan and Patricia Leitner, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, KUNZEMAN and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.), rendered July 18, 1986, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.
The defendant stands convicted of grand larceny in the second degree in connection with the theft of an automobile. Despite the strong evidence of guilt adduced at the trial, we conclude that reversal is required because the defendant did not receive a fair trial.
Twice during the cross-examination of the arresting officer, defense counsel made inquiry as to his rationale for believing that the defendant was in illegal possession of the vehicle. These colloquies proceeded as follows:
On redirect examination, the prosecutrix engaged in the following line of questioning which was permitted by the trial judge on the ground that the door to such testimony had been opened:
Thereafter the court did not provide the jury with an instruction on the limited purpose of this testimony.
Although evidence of similar uncharged crimes may have probative value, generally it is excluded for policy reasons, because of the danger that it will induce the jury to base a determination of guilt upon collateral matters or to convict a defendant because of his past ( see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; People v. Lewis, 69 N.Y.2d 321, 325, 514 N.Y.S.2d 205, 506 N.E.2d 915). However, evidence of prior uncharged crimes may be received into evidence if it helps to establish an element of the crime charged or is relevant because of a recognized exception to the general rule (see, People v. Alvino, supra; People v. Jackson, 39 N.Y.2d 64, 382 N.Y.S.2d 736, 346 N.E.2d 537; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293, 61 N.E. 286).
Based upon the record before, us we hold that the trial court improperly permitted the redirect testimony of the arresting officer detailing the defendant's involvement in what were nearly identical uncharged crimes. Under no view of the evidence can it be said that the probative value of this testimony exceeded its prejudice to the defendant ( see, People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 529, 510 N.Y.S.2d 532, 503 N.E.2d 88). We further reject the conclusion that the cross-examination by defense counsel "opened the door" to the subject redirect testimony ( see, People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 449 N.Y.S.2d 946, 434 N.E.2d 1324). Despite the quantum of evidence against the defendant we cannot say that the causal effect the error may nevertheless have had upon the jury was harmless ( People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 240, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; see also, People v. Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750, 530 N.Y.S.2d 74, 525 N.E.2d 719).
Although no objection was made by defense counsel to the court's submission to the jury of a verdict sheet defining the elements of the crimes charged, we reach the issue in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Abushatara
...144 A.D.2d 509, 510, 534 N.Y.S.2d 17; cf., People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830, 530 N.Y.S.2d 543, 526 N.E.2d 33; People v. Testaverde, 143 A.D.2d 208, 532 N.Y.S.2d 12). Moreover, reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted because the defendant consented to the submission of the verdi......
-
People v. Gray
...v. Monroe, 135 A.D.2d 741, 522 N.Y.S.2d 643; cf., People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830, 530 N.Y.S.2d 543, 526 N.E.2d 33; People v. Testaverde, 143 A.D.2d 208, 532 N.Y.S.2d 12). In People v. Hughes, 59 N.Y.2d 523, 466 N.Y.S.2d 255, 453 N.E.2d 484, the intricacies of the admission of hypnotically......
-
People v. Alexander
...509 N.E.2d 314; People v. Crosby, App.Div., 541 N.Y.S.2d 81; People v. Gillispie, 144 A.D.2d 482, 533 N.Y.S.2d 981; People v. Testaverde, 143 A.D.2d 208, 532 N.Y.S.2d 12; People v. Valle, 143 A.D.2d 160, 531 N.Y.S.2d 929). With respect to the defendant Gayle, his trial counsel did not make ......
-
People v. Weatherly
...to the submission of the verdict sheets (see, People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830, 530 N.Y.S.2d 543, 526 N.E.2d 33; cf., People v. Testaverde, App.Div., 532 N.Y.S.2d 12). We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without ...