People v. Towndrow
Decision Date | 05 February 1993 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert L. TOWNDROW, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gerald T. Barth, Submitted by W. Benjamin Coffin, Syracuse, for Robert T. Towndrow and another, appellants.
Steven Paquette, Syracuse, for George Ward, appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, Submitted by Gary Kelder, Syracuse, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and GREEN, LAWTON, FALLON and DOERR, JJ.
We write to state unequivocally our disapproval of the reasonable doubt instruction given by the trial court. In each of the three cases before us, the court gave an instruction on reasonable doubt that, in its totality, failed to convey to the jury the correct rule of law to be applied in reaching its verdict ( see, People v. Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 832), and deprived defendant of a fair trial by diluting the People's burden of proof (see, People v. Geddes, 186 A.D.2d 993, 588 N.Y.S.2d 670; People v. Garcia, 179 A.D.2d 1047, 1048, 579 N.Y.S.2d 518). The court gave the objectionable instruction in each case despite our continued criticism of its charge on reasonable doubt. It should hardly need to be stated that trial courts are bound to follow the holdings of the Appellate Division (Duffy v. Horton Mem. Hosp., 66 N.Y.2d 473, 475, 497 N.Y.S.2d 890, 488 N.E.2d 820; Ross Bicycles v. Citibank, 149 A.D.2d 330, 331, 539 N.Y.S.2d 906; State of New York v. Glen & Mohawk Milk Assn., 114 Misc.2d 363, 368, 451 N.Y.S.2d 625, affd. 93 A.D.2d 975, 461 N.Y.S.2d 648, affd. 61 N.Y.2d 705, 472 N.Y.S.2d 606, 460 N.E.2d 1091; Himes v. Stalker, 99 Misc.2d 610, 616, 416 N.Y.S.2d 986; see, People v. Munoz, 40 A.D.2d 337, 338, 340 N.Y.S.2d 238, affd. 33 N.Y.2d 998, 353 N.Y.S.2d 965, 309 N.E.2d 427). As a result of the court's deliberate refusal to heed our numerous prior rulings, and its unwillingness to conform its instructions to the law, we are forced to reverse convictions that involve grievous criminal conduct, and to order new trials. That results in a great disservice to the taxpayers, who must bear the substantial cost of retrials; to the public, whose faith in the criminal justice system must certainly be weakened; and to the parties and victims, who will be required to undergo the rigors of retrials.
In each of the cases before us, the court instructed the jury that reasonable doubt must be "based upon some good sound substantial reason". We have condemned that formulation repeatedly, in language that leaves no doubt about its impropriety (see, People v. Geddes, supra; People v. Frank, 186 A.D.2d 1062, 590 N.Y.S.2d 772; People v. Garcia, supra; People v. Stewart, 185 A.D.2d 677, 586 N.Y.S.2d 174; People v. Newell, 178 A.D.2d 959, 579 N.Y.S.2d 257; People v. DeMott, 178 A.D.2d 935; People v. Phoenix, 148 A.D.2d 942, 540 N.Y.S.2d 211, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 1020, 541 N.Y.S.2d 774, 539 N.E.2d 602; People v. Jiminez, 147 A.D.2d 905, 537 N.Y.S.2d 380, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 978, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 538 N.E.2d 364; People v. Luis, 145 A.D.2d 960, 961, 536 N.Y.S.2d 332, lv. denied73 N.Y.2d 923, 539 N.Y.S.2d 308, 536 N.E.2d 637; People v. Thompson, 145 A.D.2d 952, 536 N.Y.S.2d 322, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 983, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 538 N.E.2d 369; People v. Price, 144 A.D.2d 1013, 535 N.Y.S.2d 281, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 895, 538 N.Y.S.2d 807, 535 N.E.2d 1347; People v. Balian, 49 A.D.2d 94, 98, 371 N.Y.S.2d 516). We point out that almost all of the foregoing decisions reviewed trials conducted by the same Trial Judge.
That language, standing alone, would not require reversal; additionally, however, in each of the three cases, the court's charge unfairly diluted the People's burden of proof by emphasizing difficulties encountered in prosecution of the crimes. For example, in People v. Ward, involving allegations of child sexual abuse, the court stated:
In People v. Towndrow, similarly involving charges of child sexual abuse, the court stated:
In People v. Smith, an attempted robbery prosecution, the court gave the following charge:
The court's comments "improper[ly] * * * implied that the People's burden of proof was diminished because the time of the alleged incident was remote" (People v. Geddes, supra ) or because the witnesses were children. The court's inappropriate and gratuitous comments suggested that discrepancies in the proof were to be disregarded. Thus, the charge had the inevitable effect of lessening the People's burden of proof (People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kardas v. Union Carbide Corp., 2004 NY Slip Op 50163(U) (NY 3/25/2004)
...the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or this court pronounces a contrary rule"]; People v. Towndrow, 187 A.D.2d 194,195 [4th Dept. 1993], appeal dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 1021 [1993] ["It should hardly need to be stated that trial courts are bound to follow the ......
-
People v. Paris
...upon some good sound substantial reason" without additional objectionable language does not require reversal (People v. Towndrow, 187 A.D.2d 194, 195-196, 594 N.Y.S.2d 469, lv. dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 1021, 600 N.Y.S.2d 209, 616 N.E.2d 866). A single word or phrase alone does not violate the co......
-
Beverly v. Walker
...based in part on misleading reasonable doubt instructions strikingly similar to those given here. See People v. Towndrow, 187 A.D.2d 194, 195-96, 594 N.Y.S.2d 469 (4th Dep't) (per curiam) ("In each of the cases before us, the court instructed the jury that reasonable doubt must be 'based up......
-
People v. Gordon
...cert. denied 459 U.S. 847, 103 S.Ct. 104, 74 L.Ed.2d 93; People v. Acosta, 182 A.D.2d 768, 582 N.Y.S.2d 767; cf., People v. Towndrow, 187 A.D.2d 194, 195, 594 N.Y.S.2d 469). Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing counsel's conduct in its entirety, the defendant was not deprived of ......