People v. Gaye (Souleymane)
2017 NYSlipOp 50187(U)
| N.Y. App. Term. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Defendant Souleymane Gaye was charged by information (misdemeanor complaint plus Apple store security officer deposition) with attempted petit larceny and attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree for taking two items from an Apple display, placing them in a backpack, and attempting to leave without paying.
- Case tried nonjury in New York County Criminal Court; conviction entered March 7, 2013.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the accusatory instrument was facially insufficient, and (2) his constitutional rights to present a defense, confront witnesses, and call witnesses were violated when the court precluded certain impeachment/extrinsic evidence.
- Appellate court reviewed the pleading sufficiency and trial-court evidentiary rulings.
- The court treated the confrontation/presentation arguments as unpreserved and declined interest-of-justice review, but also rejected them on the merits as within trial court discretion and harmless if erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Gaye’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facially sufficient accusatory instrument | Information (complaint + security deposition) adequately alleged attempted petit larceny and attempted criminal possession so defendant had notice. | Information lacked sufficient factual detail to be facially sufficient. | Affirmed: pleading sufficient to give notice and protect against double jeopardy. |
| Exclusion of extrinsic documentary evidence for impeachment | Trial court properly excluded extrinsic evidence aimed solely at collateral impeachment of the security officer. | Exclusion denied right to present a defense, confront/cross-examine witness, and call witnesses. | Unpreserved; declined review in interest of justice; alternatively rejected on merits as proper exercise of discretion. |
| Harmlessness of any evidentiary error | Any exclusion would be harmless because excluded testimony could not have affected the verdict. | Exclusion was prejudicial and affected outcome. | Any error would have been harmless; conviction stands. |
| Need for further evidentiary detail in pleading | No additional evidentiary detail required beyond complaint + deposition. | More specifics were required to prepare a defense. | No additional detail required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kasse, 22 N.Y.3d 1142 (2014) (pleading must give adequate notice to prepare a defense and protect against double jeopardy)
- People v. Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309 (1981) (principles governing sufficiency of accusatory instruments)
- People v. Lane, 7 N.Y.3d 888 (2006) (preservation requirements for appellate review of constitutional trial claims)
- People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282 (1983) (limits on use of extrinsic evidence for collateral impeachment)
- People v. Knight, 80 N.Y.2d 845 (1992) (trial court discretion over admissibility of impeachment evidence)
- People v. Perez, 236 A.D.2d 298 (1997) (harmless error analysis for improperly excluded evidence)