From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 14, 1998
256 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 14, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered, to be preceded by any appropriate pretrial hearings; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed as academic in light of our determination of the appeal from the judgment.

When arrested, the defendant gave the police a statement that was partly inculpatory and partly exculpatory. The statement related to a shooting, and the ownership of the car that was allegedly used in connection with the crime. According to the prosecution's pretrial notice, the defendant stated that "he had been driving on 10/14/95 in the area of Brooklyn, and that he had used the Honda to drive to St. Marks Ave., Brooklyn, to visit a girlfriend named `Cheryl', but he denied going to Queens and shooting the victim".

At trial, the prosecutor brought out only the inculpatory portion of the statement and succeeded in blocking the defendant's attempt to bring out the remaining, exculpatory portion. The court erred in allowing the prosecution to do so (see, People v. Dlugash, 41 N.Y.2d 725; People v. Gallo, 12 N.Y.2d 12, 15; People v. Saintilima, 173 A.D.2d 496; People v. Blackburn, 213 A.D.2d 1009; see also, United States v. Walker, 652 F.2d 708; United States v. Haddad, 10 F.3d 1252, 1258; see generally, Annotation, Proof of Entire Conversation Containing Alleged Confession, 26 ALR 541).

During summations, the prosecutor exploited the ruling and capitalized upon it by arguing improperly to the jury that the defendant had not told the police that at the time in question he was with Cheryl. Because the prosecutor misled the jury by pointing to the absence of evidence that he knew existed, reversal is warranted (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273; People v. Savvides, 1 N.Y.2d 554; United States v. Toney, 599 F.2d 787, 790-791).

Under the circumstances, the new trial should be preceded by any appropriate pretrial hearings.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 14, 1998
256 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DENNIS ANDERSON…

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

Date published: Dec 14, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
682 N.Y.S.2d 231

Citing Cases

People v. Mateo

( People v. Dales, 309 NY 97; People v. Rojas, 97 NY2d 32.) VII. Appellant's out-of-court statement about why…