Summary
In Coleman, the court affirmed the order of Supreme Court annulling petitioner's disciplinary hearing solely on state law grounds, specifically noting it found no need to consider whether the hearing officer's refusal to permit petitioner's brother to testify in mitigation or as to petitioner's necessity defense, which the court found was material and relevant, also violated federal due process under Wolff v. McDonnell. Coleman, supra.
Summary of this case from Wright v. CoughlinOpinion
Decided June 13, 1985
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Joseph P. Torraca, J.
Robert Selcov and David C. Leven for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Robert Hermann and Linda J. Cohen of counsel), for respondents.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, respondents' determination annulled and the matter remitted to the Department of Correctional Services for a new hearing.
Respondents' regulations provide that an inmate facing disciplinary proceedings "may call witnesses on his behalf provided their testimony is material, is not redundant, and doing so does not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals" (7 N.Y.CRR 254.5 [a]). In petitioner's proceeding, he requested that his brother be called as a witness to give testimony in mitigation of the penalty to be imposed. His request was denied on the grounds that the testimony would be irrelevant and unnecessary because petitioner had admitted violating the inmate rules. This was error because testimony in mitigation of the penalty to be imposed or raising a possible justification defense to the charged violation is relevant and material evidence ( see, Matter of Cook v Coughlin, 97 A.D.2d 663, 664; Matter of De Mauro v LeFevre, 91 A.D.2d 1156, 1157; Matter of Santana v Coughlin, 90 A.D.2d 947, 948; Matter of Martin v Coughlin, 90 A.D.2d 946; see also, Matter of Garcia v LeFevre, 64 N.Y.2d 1001, 1003). Insofar as no other grounds provided for in the regulation were raised for refusing to call petitioner's brother as a witness, his request should have been granted. In view of our determination we do not decide whether the refusal to call petitioner's requested witness violated his due process rights ( see, Wolff v McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539).
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER and TITONE concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order reversed, with costs, respondents' determination annulled and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Albany County, with directions to remand to the Department of Correctional Services for a new hearing, in a memorandum.