Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

People v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 27, 2003

305 A.D.2d 698; 760 N.Y.S.2d 227

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Lloyd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Lloyd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Berry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Newbeck (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
People v. Walker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Singleton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Singleton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Fairweather (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Nesbitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Carrieri (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Milligan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—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.

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

*699During 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 AD2d 506, 507 [2001]; People v Cummings, 109 AD2d 748 [1985]; People v Tufano, 69 AD2d 826, 827 [1979]).

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 NY2d 799, 800-801 [1991]; People v Ashner, 190 AD2d 238, 247 [1993]).

Under the circumstances of this case, the errors were not harmless. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Townes, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.