From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Conners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1989
149 A.D.2d 722 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

April 24, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the first count of the indictment under which the defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree is dismissed, without prejudice to the People to re-present any appropriate charges to another Grand Jury (see, People v. Beslanovics, 57 N.Y.2d 726), and a new trial is ordered on the remaining counts. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.

We find that the trial court committed reversible error by submitting to the jury, over defense counsel's objection, a verdict sheet containing not only the crimes charged and the possible verdicts thereon (see, CPL 310.20), but also the elements of those charges (see, People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830; People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585; People v. Valle, 143 A.D.2d 160; People v. Testaverde, 143 A.D.2d 208; People v. Gillispie, 144 A.D.2d 482).

We also note the misconduct committed by the prosecutor during summation. The prosecutor's numerous summation errors included expressing his personal opinion of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Simmons, 110 A.D.2d 666, 667), accusing one of the eyewitnesses to the crime of testifying falsely (see, People v Bailey, 58 N.Y.2d 272), referring to matters not in evidence and calling upon the jury to draw conclusions which were not fairly inferable from the evidence (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109), and improperly vouching for the truthfulness of one of his witnesses (see, People v. Blowe, 130 A.D.2d 668). While some of the prosecutor's comments may have been justified by defense counsel's summation comments (see, People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912), we conclude that the pervasive improprieties in this case exceeded the realm of reasonable response to defense counsel's arguments (see, People v Wandoloski, 128 A.D.2d 568).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Conners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1989
149 A.D.2d 722 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Conners

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TONY CONNERS, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 24, 1989

Citations

149 A.D.2d 722 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
540 N.Y.S.2d 818

Citing Cases

People v. Sotomayer

, People v Durant, 153 A.D.2d 757). In the few years since the Court of Appeals announced a rule of automatic…

People v. Pilgrim

The court did not err in ruling that the defendant could be impeached by a post-arrest statement he made that…