From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hikel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1992
180 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 24, 1992

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends, inter alia, that the trial court improperly exercised its discretion in refusing to sever his trial from that of his codefendants. We disagree. "`[I]n all cases a strong public policy favors joinder, because it expedites the judicial process, reduces court congestion, and avoids the necessity of recalling witnesses'" (People v. Cardwell, 78 N.Y.2d 996, 997, quoting People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 183). An application for separate trials is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and the court's ruling will ordinarily not be disturbed (People v. Cruz, 66 N.Y.2d 61, revd on other grounds and remanded 481 U.S. 186, on remand 70 N.Y.2d 733). However, the trial court's discretion is not absolute (People v. Cardwell, supra). Separate trials are "`compelled where the core of each defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other and where there is a significant danger, as both defenses are portrayed to the trial court, that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer defendant's guilt'" (People v. Cardwell, supra, at 997-998, quoting People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 184, supra). This is especially so where one defense attorney takes an aggressive adversarial stance against the other defendants and elicits damaging evidence against them, creating "`the sort of compelling prejudice that could have been avoided by the grant of the requested severance'" (People v. Cardwell, supra, at 998, quoting People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 186, supra). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record in the instant case does not support such a finding. That one of the robbery victims cried at trial and testified that she vomited during the robbery does not establish that there was a substantial difference in the quantity and quality of the evidence with respect to each defendant such that a separate trial would have assisted the proper administration of justice (see, CPL 200.20 [a]; People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 7; People v. Squires, 171 A.D.2d 893, 894; People v. McNeil, 165 A.D.2d 882, 883; People v Kroll, 162 A.D.2d 717, 718; People v. Griffin, 135 A.D.2d 730, 731). Moreover, the defendant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the joint trial, or that there was irreconcilable conflict between the defenses of each of the codefendants.

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hikel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1992
180 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Hikel

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JACOB HIKEL, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 24, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
581 N.Y.S.2d 801

Citing Cases

People v. Scott

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.). Ordered that the judgment is affirmed (see,…

People v. Santiago

40; People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 183). The defendant did not demonstrate that his defense was so…