People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 20 June 1988 |
| Citation | 141 A.D.2d 786,529 N.Y.S.2d 862 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Stephon WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (B. Kay Huff, of counsel), for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Richard T. Faughnan and Aaron F. Fishbein, of counsel), for respondent.
Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and KOOPER, SULLIVAN and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered July 12, 1985, convicting him of attempted murder in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.
The defendant and codefendant, Fermin Flores, were tried together for shooting Police Officer Presley Mazone on April 10, 1984, at about 10:30 P.M., while he was waiting for a train on the Van Sicklen Avenue IRT subway platform in Brooklyn, on his way to work.
The defendant and Flores, neither of whom testified at trial, made oral and videotaped statements to law enforcement officials which substantially interlocked. Under the principles enunciated in Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162, on remand 70 N.Y.2d 733, 519 N.Y.S.2d 959, 514 N.E.2d 379, there must be a new trial. We reject the People's contention that the Cruz error was harmless.
We note that while the defendant admitted in both of his statements that he fired the gun during the course of a robbery, his statements were much more limited in scope and detail than those of his codefendant, Flores, as to certain key elements of the crime of attempted murder in the first degree. The defendant stated that "the shots just went" off during his struggle with the victim, whom the defendant referred to only as "the man". Flores' confessions, on the other hand, refer to the victim as "the cop" and expressly stated that the defendant intended to kill the officer. Furthermore, Flores' videotaped statement repeatedly indicated that the defendant was more culpable: "I gave up the full information that was needed in order to catch the real person"; "I did give you the man that you really--that you really wanted." Accordingly, we cannot conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the codefendant's statements contributed to the conviction of this defendant ( see, Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284; People v. Smalls, 55 N.Y.2d 407, 449 N.Y.S.2d 696, 434 N.E.2d 1063; People v. Scalerico, 140 A.D.2d 386, 527 N.Y.S.2d 567).
The defendant further contends that his statements and the weapon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Flores
...1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162, on remand 70 N.Y.2d 733, 519 N.Y.S.2d 959, 514 N.E.2d 379, we reversed and ordered a new trial (People v. Williams, 141 A.D.2d 786, 529 N.Y.S.2d 862). In People v. Williams, supra, we noted that Williams's statements were more limited in scope than those of the defenda......
-
People v. Williams
...the judgment is affirmed. The defendant was retried after this court reversed a prior judgment of conviction (see, People v. Williams, 141 A.D.2d 786, 529 N.Y.S.2d 862). Upon this appeal, the defendant again challenges the denial, after a hearing (Feldman, J.), of those branches of his moti......
-
People v. Barreto
...the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered (see, People v. Velasquez, 143 A.D.2d 956, 533 N.Y.S.2d 572, People v. Williams, 141 A.D.2d 786, 529 N.Y.S.2d 862; People v. Martin, 139 A.D.2d 599, 527 N.Y.S.2d 91). We find, however, that the defendant's contention that his confessio......