184 A.D.3d 660
N.Y. App. Div.2020Background
- On November 8, 2013, four masked intruders entered William Jordan's Brooklyn apartment; two displayed guns, demanded money and marijuana; Walter Lindsay was shot in the back and Jordan was fatally shot in the head.
- Lindsay initially told police on the night of the shooting that he could not identify the intruders; eleven days later he told police he recognized the defendant (Jermaine Butts) and two codefendants.
- At trial Lindsay testified and identified Butts as one of the intruders; following a jury trial Butts was convicted of second‑degree murder, second‑degree burglary, second‑degree assault, and second‑degree criminal possession of a weapon.
- The defense sought to call Elliot Boyd (Lindsay's brother) to impeach Lindsay with prior statements that Lindsay repeatedly said he had not seen the intruders’ faces because they wore masks; the trial court excluded Boyd’s testimony on foundation, hearsay, and courtroom‑presence grounds.
- The Appellate Division held the exclusion improperly deprived Butts of his right to present a defense and remanded for a new trial, concluding the error was not harmless given the non‑overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence for assault charge | People: evidence supported assault conviction | Butts: challenged sufficiency (unpreserved) | Unpreserved; in any event evidence was legally sufficient and not against weight |
| Exclusion of witness Boyd (impeachment of Lindsay) | People: defense failed to lay foundation; testimony was hearsay; Boyd was present during testimony | Butts: Boyd would testify Lindsay repeatedly said he did not see faces; material impeachment going to core ID issue; prosecutor could have recalled Lindsay to lay foundation | Trial court erred in excluding Boyd; testimony was materially inconsistent and probative; exclusion violated right to present a defense; remand for new trial |
| Harmlessness of evidentiary error | People: exclusion harmless given overall proof | Butts: error was prejudicial given contested ID | Error not harmless; evidence of guilt was not overwhelming; reversal required |
| Use of defendant's nickname "Maniac" | People: limited, used only by witness and prosecutor in context of testimony | Butts: nickname use was prejudicial and deprived him of fair trial | Partially unpreserved and, on merits, not so egregious as to deny fair trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (right to present witnesses as part of due process)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (constitutional protection for presenting vital exculpatory evidence notwithstanding hearsay rules)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (confrontation and impeachment rights)
- Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (confrontation right to cross‑examine accusers)
- People v. Knight, 80 N.Y.2d 845 (relevancy of inconsistent statements to core issues)
- People v. Bradley, 99 A.D.3d 934 (admissibility and materiality of inconsistent statements for impeachment)
- People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342 (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency)
- People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 (harmless error analysis)