Summary
In People v. Ramashwar, 299 A.D.2d 496, 749 N.Y.S.2d 886 (2d Dep't 2002), the Appellate Division reversed a conviction, in the interest of justice, after the prosecutor in that case questioned two defense witnesses regarding their prior statements to her in a telephone interview, and then tried to impeach them with their alleged prior responses.
Summary of this case from Samuel v. LavalleyOpinion
2000-10312
Submitted October 7, 2002.
November 18, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered October 27, 2000, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (V. Marika Meis of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Suzanne H. Middleton of counsel), for respondent.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.
We agree with the defendant's claim that the prosecutor injected the issue of her own credibility into the trial when she questioned two defense witnesses regarding their prior statements to her in a telephone interview. When the witnesses either sought to explain the statements or could not recall making the statements, the prosecutor then sought to impeach the witnesses with their alleged prior responses. In doing so, the prosecutor's credibility became an issue at trial and deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Bailey, 58 N.Y.2d 272, 277; People v. Paperno, 54 N.Y.2d 294, 300-301; cf. People v. King, 175 A.D.2d 266). Moreover, it was improper for the prosecutor to comment upon those inconsistencies in summation (cf. People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396), thus putting the prosecutor's credibility in issue for the jury's consideration and evaluation.
In light of this determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions.
SMITH, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.