1 No. 75
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Andre Arnold,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 62
June 4, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Camilla B. Taylor, for appellant.
Madeleine Guilmain, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
CIPARICK, J.:
At issue on this appeal is whether a trial court, in the exercise of
discretion, can call its own witness after both the People and the
defense have rested. Under the circumstances presented here, we
conclude that it was error for the court to do so.
On May 12, 1998, a team from the Manhattan North Narcotics Zone that
included Detective Rodriguez and Police Officer Hernandez went to an
apartment in Manhattan to execute a search warrant. Detective
Rodriguez had called the Police Department's Emergency Services Unit
(ESU) to assist the team in gaining entry to the apartment through a
heavily reinforced door. Once at the location, ESU broke down the
door, entered the apartment and "secured" the premises by handcuffing
-- hands behind their backs -- the three people there, including
defendant. The narcotics officers then entered the apartment. They
reported that in addition to the discovery of 174 vials of crack
cocaine and $1279 in cash on the floor near defendant, a search of
defendant yielded 70 packets of heroin, $922 in cash and a loaded
handgun tucked in the back of his waistband. Defendant was charged
with criminal possession of drugs and a weapon.
At a bench trial, defendant maintained he was framed by the narcotics
officers who he claimed planted the drugs, cash and gun on his person.
Defendant's theory was that if those items were actually on his person
when the police entered the apartment, ESU would have discovered them
when they cuffed him. The People contended that, although it was the
SNIPPETS:
At issue on this appeal is whether a trial court, in the exercise of discretion, can call its
On May 12, 1998, a team from the Manhattan North Narcotics Zone that included Detective
Detective Rodriguez had called the Police Department's Emergency Services Unit (ESU) to
Once at the location, ESU broke down the door, entered the apartment and "secured" the
They reported that in addition to the discovery of 174 vials of crack cocaine and $1279 in
At a bench trial, defendant maintained he was framed by the narcotics officers who he claimed
The People contended that, although it was the function of ESU to secure the premises, they
After both sides rested, the Trial Judge called as a court witness, over defendant's
Supreme Court convicted defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the
When trial resumed for the afternoon session, defense counsel, apparently after speaking to
Testifying as a court witness, Sergeant Miller stated that he could not recall events on the
the prosecutor summarized Sergeant Miller's testimony as "at most the ESU Unit would have
Trial judges have wide discretion in directing the presentation of evidence but must exercise
In actuality, however, our system has evolved into what commentators have called a "modified"
As a practical matter, trial courts sometimes must take a more active role in the
an appellate court will have a basis on which to review the trial court's exercise of
|
