From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Freeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 26, 1991
172 A.D.2d 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 26, 1991

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Wisner, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Denman, Pine and Lawton, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from his conviction of second degree burglary and various counts of larceny, defendant contends that the court did not adequately instruct the jury on his "second bite" right to counsel claim; that the court's instructions on reasonable doubt and burden of proof were erroneous; that the court erred in denying his CPL 30.30 motion; and that the court erred in denying his motion for appointment of a special prosecutor. None of defendant's contentions requires reversal.

Defendant did not object to the "second bite" charge (CPL 710.70) given by the court and made no additional request to charge. Therefore, he has failed to preserve his claim for our review (People v. Roth, 139 A.D.2d 605, 608, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 866). Further, reversal is not required as a result of the court's charge on reasonable doubt and burden of proof. Defendant failed to preserve his challenges to those aspects of the court's charge, and we decline to review his claims in the interest of justice. Moreover, were we to review the claims, we would find that the court's instructions, if in fact erroneous, did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 300, 303, cert denied 459 U.S. 847; People v. Jackson, 124 A.D.2d 975, 976, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 746).

Defendant's CPL 30.30 motion was properly denied. An accusatory instrument was filed on May 23, 1988, and the People announced their readiness on the record on August 10, 1988, well within the six-month period. The People's announcement of their readiness within six months satisfied their obligation under CPL 30.30 (People v. Giordano, 56 N.Y.2d 524, 525). Absent a claim that the People were not in fact ready at that time or that they subsequently became "unready", it is irrelevant that the prosecution was subsequently delayed as a result of defendant's failure to appear in court (see, People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529; People v. Giordano, supra).

Finally, the court did not err in denying defendant's motion to disqualify the District Attorney and appoint a special prosecutor. It appears that the arresting officer later became an Assistant District Attorney in Monroe County, a position he held at the time of his testimony against defendant in this case. Defendant now argues that allowing the District Attorney's office to prosecute him violated the "advocate-witness" rule of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-101 (B), which provides that a lawyer generally shall not accept employment in litigation if he knows that he or a lawyer in his firm will be called as a witness. While the Court of Appeals has held that the proscription of DR 5-101 (B) applies "to the prosecuting attorney", and that an individual trial assistant should not serve as prosecutor in a case in which he will be called as a witness (People v. Paperno, 54 N.Y.2d 294, 300), Paperno does not contemplate disqualification of all attorneys in the office of the District Attorney merely because one of them will testify. Requiring the appointment of a special prosecutor any time an Assistant District Attorney will be a witness in a case would constitute an unreasonable burden on the People. The "advocate-witness" rule was not violated because no attorney served as both a witness and an advocate in this case. The fact that the witness's colleague prosecuted the case is not sufficient to show either actual prejudice or a substantial risk of abuse of confidence. Absent such showing, there was no ground for disqualifying the District Attorney from prosecuting the case (People v. Keeton, 74 N.Y.2d 903, 904; Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46, 55; People v. Poplis, 30 N.Y.2d 85, 89; Matter of Morgenthau v. Crane, 113 A.D.2d 20, 23).


Summaries of

People v. Freeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 26, 1991
172 A.D.2d 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Freeman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JACKIE FREEMAN…

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

Date published: Apr 26, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 857

Citing Cases

State v. Jaquish

ant and the District Attorney are county officers and employees is overbroad and without merit. No conflict…

People v. Wynn

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the mere fact that the…