Opinion
11621 Ind. 970/16
06-04-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael CONNER, Defendant–Appellant.
Christina A. Swarns, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Joseph M. Nursey of counsel), and Milbank LLP, New York (Emily Scarisbrick of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip V. Tisne of counsel), for respondent.
Christina A. Swarns, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Joseph M. Nursey of counsel), and Milbank LLP, New York (Emily Scarisbrick of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip V. Tisne of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Gische, Webber, Oing, Moulton, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered May 10, 2017, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a trial.
The trial court erred in denying defendant's request to cross-examine a police Sergeant regarding allegations of misconduct in a civil lawsuit in which it was claimed that this police Sergeant and a police detective arrested the plaintiff without suspicion of criminality and lodged false charges against him (see People v. Smith, 27 N.Y.3d 652, 36 N.Y.S.3d 861, 57 N.E.3d 53 [2016] ). The civil complaint contained allegations of falsification specific to this officer (and another officer), which bore on his credibility at the trial.
Contrary to the People's allegations, the error was not harmless. The police sergeant's credibility was critical because he was the only eyewitness to the crime (see People v. Burgess, 178 A.D.3d 609, 112 N.Y.S.3d 505 [1st Dept. 2019] ; People v. Holmes, 170 A.D.3d 532, 533–34, 97 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2019] ; People v. Robinson, 154 A.D.3d 490, 491, 63 N.Y.S.3d 310 [1st Dept. 2017], lv. denied 30 N.Y.3d 1108, 77 N.Y.S.3d 7, 101 N.E.3d 393 [2018] ). Although the sergeant's testimony was corroborated by other evidence, none of this corroborating evidence was sufficient, on its own, to prove defendant's guilt, as all of it relied on the sergeant's testimony for context.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We find it unnecessary to reach any other issue.