 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANT DEFENSE COUNSEL ALIBI WITNESSES TRIAL ASSISTANT DAWSON COMPANIONS POLICE OFFICERS STATION HOUSE EXCULPATORY INFORMATION JUDGE SPEAK FAILURE NY2D REASON APPELLANT ARREST SCENE PRIOR ABORTED MEETING INSTRUCTIONS CONTENDS IMPEACHMENT PROPER FOUNDATION LAID TESTIMONY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PRESENCE REPRESENTATION COURT CROSS-EXAMINATION |
PEOPLE, & C., RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT MILLER, APPELLANT.
89 N.Y.2d 1077, 681 N.E.2d 1283, 659 N.Y.S.2d 837 (1997).
May 13, 1997
1 No. 95 (1997 NY Int. 85)
Decided May 13, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
______________________________________________________________________
Submitted by Alan S. Axelrod, for Appellant.
Robert M. Raciti, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of second-degree robbery.
Defendant was with three companions when he was pointed out to police
officers by the complainant, a cab driver, as the person who had
robbed him shortly before. All four men were frisked but defendant's
companions were released. Two of defendant's companions -- his alibi
witnesses at trial -- followed defendant and the arresting officers to
the station house. According to an alibi witness, the witnesses tried
to inform police officers at the station house that defendant had been
in their company at a night club and, therefore, could not have
committed any crime, but "no one would listen." Two police officers
disputed this testimony, claiming that the witnesses never attempted
to provide any exculpatory information.
Prior to the commencement of the defense case, the trial judge ruled
that the People could question defendant's alibi witnesses about an
aborted meeting with the trial assistant. The witnesses had gone with
defense counsel to inform the district attorney that they had
information that would exculpate defendant. However, the witnesses
refused to speak with the trial assistant outside the presence of
defense counsel. There was no representation that the condition set by
the witnesses was at the request or instruction of defense counsel.
Perceiving a conflict of interest, the trial assistant ended the
meeting and asked the witnesses to return with their own counsel. They
never did.
On appeal, defendant contends that impeachment of his alibi witnesses
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
