People v. Towns

• Decision Date: 09 June 2017
• Citation: 57 N.Y.S.3d 276,151 A.D.3d 1638
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Agape A. TOWNS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

151 A.D.3d 1638
57 N.Y.S.3d 276

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Agape A. TOWNS, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

June 9, 2017.

57 N.Y.S.3d 277

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Dianne C. Russell of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Leah R. Mervine of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of six counts of robbery in the first degree ( Penal Law § 160.15[2], [4] ) arising out of a holdup at a restaurant. Defendant's primary contention on appeal is that County Court's conduct in negotiating and entering into a cooperation agreement with a prosecution witness denied defendant due process of law. Defendant contends that the court's actions, including acting as a prosecutor and implicitly vouching for the credibility of a witness, deprived him of a fair trial before an unbiased and neutral judge and usurped the jury's fact-finding function. Defendant's contention arises out of events that transpired in significant part outside the record of defendant's trial, in which the court interjected itself into stalled plea negotiations between the People and one of the codefendants, offering leniency in the sentencing of the codefendant on the condition that he testify truthfully against defendant at his trial.

"Trial judges have wide discretion in directing the presentation of evidence but must exercise that discretion appropriately and without prejudice to the parties" ( People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67, 745 N.Y.S.2d 782, 772 N.E.2d 1140 ). "While ‘neither the nature of our adversary system nor the constitutional requirement of a fair trial preclude a trial court from assuming an active role in the truth-seeking process,’ the court's discretion is not unfettered ... The overarching principle restraining the court's discretion is that it is the function of the judge to protect the record at trial, not to make it" (id. ). "Where the Trial Judge oversteps the bounds and assumes the role of a prosecutor, however well intentioned the motive[,] there is a denial of a fair trial and there must be a reversal" ( People v. Ellis, 62 A.D.2d 469, 470, 404 N.Y.S.2d 862 ; see

57 N.Y.S.3d 278

...