From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Forbes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 1982
87 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

April 5, 1982


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered May 23, 1980, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established. The defendant sought to call his sister as a witness on his behalf. Criminal Term denied this request on the ground that her testimony would be collateral. This ruling was erroneous. The right to present evidence by witnesses of one's own choosing is a fundamental ingredient of due process ( Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 429), and the testimony of a defendant's witness should not be prospectively excluded unless it is offered in palpably bad faith ( People v. Gilliam, 37 N.Y.2d 722, revg 45 A.D.2d 744 on the dissenting opn of Hopkins, J.; People v. McClinton, 75 A.D.2d 900). As it cannot be said on this record that defendant was acting in bad faith, a new trial is required. We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be lacking in merit. Titone, J.P., Mangano, Bracken and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Forbes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 1982
87 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

People v. Forbes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ETHAN FORBES, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 5, 1982

Citations

87 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

People v. Daly

We disagree with defendant's argument. It is beyond question that (1) "[t]he right to present evidence is, of…

People v. Westergard

Defendant maintains on appeal that the trial court's restrictive rulings with regard to the prospective…