People v. Hawkins
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 30, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court
The Supreme Court of Bronx County, presided over by Judge David Stadtmauer, reversed a previous conviction of the defendant for first-degree robbery and remanded the case for a new trial. The original conviction stemmed from the defendant's involvement in a robbery at a bodega where three employees were shot. The defendant was apprehended after fleeing from a Volkswagen Jetta, which matched the description of a getaway vehicle provided by a witness. During his flight, he discarded a .32 caliber revolver, while additional firearms were found in the Jetta. The prosecution sought to introduce a prior statement from the defendant related to a robbery-murder at a Manhattan bodega, which occurred shortly before the Bronx robbery. This statement was deemed relevant to the issues of identity and intent, and its admission was supported by a previous Huntley hearing confirming its voluntary nature. The notice for introducing this statement was considered timely by the court, satisfying legal requirements. However, the court found it was erroneous to allow the introduction of ballistics evidence linking the Manhattan robbery to a murder victim, as its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value. This evidence unduly highlighted the murder aspect and implied the defendant's culpability. The trial court correctly permitted the prosecution to cross-examine a defense witness about his guilty plea related to the robbery and his statements implicating the defendant in both the Bronx and Manhattan robberies. The defense inadvertently opened the door for this questioning by suggesting the defendant was not originally involved in the Manhattan crime. The trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to utilize a witness's plea allocution regarding the defendant's display of the gun and by excessively cross-examining this witness, which led to the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege concerning questions about a Manhattan crime implicating the defendant. The prosecution's summation improperly emphasized prejudicial evidence related to a Kings County car theft and a Manhattan robbery, suggesting a direct link between the defendant and a murder. The prosecutor's statements insinuated the defendant's guilt and invited the jury to view him as a "gunman" and murderer, undermining the fairness of the trial. These summation comments, along with evidentiary errors, collectively deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Other claims made by the defendant regarding the court’s rulings were found to lack merit.