From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 2003
305 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-06960

Argued May 8, 2003.

May 27, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered June 26, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Sarah J. Berger of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Michael Tarbutton of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

During the direct examination of the arresting detective, the prosecutor elicited testimony that the detective arrested the nontestifying codefendant at 6:15 P.M., brought him back to the police station house, and interviewed him. He and another police officer subsequently responded to a location. When the prosecutor asked what happened there, the detective responded that he arrested the defendant. Eight questions later, the prosecutor elicited from the detective that he arrested the defendant at 6:35 P.M. Such questioning was improper, as it was indicative of a deliberate attempt by the prosecutor to create in the jurors' minds the impression that the codefendant implicated the defendant (see People v. James, 289 A.D.2d 506, 507; People v. Cummings, 109 A.D.2d 748; People v. Tufano, 69 A.D.2d 826, 827).

In addition, the court erred in precluding cross-examination of the complainant regarding the length of time it took him to identify the defendant at a lineup. Where, as here, the reliability of the identification by the complainant, the sole eyewitness, was crucial at trial, such restriction on cross-examination was improper (see People v. Williamson, 79 N.Y.2d 799, 800-801; People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 247).

Under the circumstances of this case, the errors were not harmless.

FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 2003
305 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JULIUS JONES, appellant

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

Date published: May 27, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
760 N.Y.S.2d 227

Citing Cases

People v. Lloyd

The jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the…

People v. Berry

The detective related that he photocopied one particular page from this book, sought subscriber information…