THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. REGINALD KNIGHT, APPELLANT.
80 N.Y.2d 845, 600 N.E.2d 219, 587 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1992).
July 1, 1992
2 No. 139
Decided July 1, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Steven M. Statsinger, for Appellant.
Amy S. Griffin, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Having been charged with participating in a gunpoint robbery,
defendant claimed that he had been mistakenly identified and presented
an alibi defense at trial. During the prosecutor's cross-examination,
two of defendant's alibi witnesses stated that they had told the
police their stories when the police came to their home to arrest him.
The People were then permitted, over a defense objection, to call the
arresting officer and elicit from him that neither of the witnesses
had, in fact, come forward at the time of the arrest. Defendant was
subsequently convicted, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding
that the trial court had not erred in permitting the use of extrinsic
evidence to rebut the alibi witnesses' claims that they had promptly
reported defendant's alibi to the police.
On this appeal, defendant argues that the admission of the police
officer's rebuttal testimony violated the rule prohibiting the use of
extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness on a matter that is merely
collateral (see, e.g., People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v
Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, cert denied 396 US 846). However, the rule,
whose purpose is to avoid undue confusion and unfair surprise on
matters of minimal probative worth (People v Pavao, supra, at 289),
has no application where the issue to which the evidence relates is
material in the sense that it is relevant to the very issues that the
jury must decide (People v Wise, 46 NY2d 321, 328).
In People v Dawson (50 NY2d 311), this Court recognized that, in a
proper case, an alibi witness's failure promptly to come forward with
his or her story may have probative worth in that such silence bears
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. REGINALD KNIGHT, APPELLANT.
Having been charged with participating in a gunpoint robbery, defendant claimed that he had
During the prosecutor's cross-examination, two of defendant's alibi witnesses stated that
The People were then permitted, over a defense objection, to call the arresting officer and
Defendant was subsequently convicted, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the
On this appeal, defendant argues that the admission of the police officer's rebuttal
In People v Dawson, this Court recognized that, in a proper case, an alibi witness's failure
Thus, in trials involving an alibi defense, an alibi witness's prompt report, or failure
Indeed, the use of extrinsic evidence in this context is analogous to the use of such
The rebuttal evidence in Cade squarely contradicted the alibi witness's direct testimony,
The concurrence is based on a fundamental misconstruction of the Court's holding in Dawson.
The concurrer assumes that evidence as to whether the alibi witnesses promptly told their
On the other hand, evidence of a witness's prior failure to come forward is permissible under
It is basic that a cross-examiner is bound by a witness's answers to questions on collateral
It is the relevance of the fact inquired about on cross-examination -- not the importance or
People v Dawson, cited by the court, pertains to what may be asked on cross- examination to
Here, the extrinsic evidence does not contradict the material fact in issue but only one
I would, nevertheless, affirm inasmuch as the error was harmless.
|
