People v. Lockley
2021 NY Slip Op 06192
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2021Background
- On Aug. 21, 2003, Fabian Ceballos was shot and killed after two men entered his home; eyewitness Torgesen described a Black male who went inside and a second (Indian) male who blocked her.
- Police recovered a cigarette butt from the scene; DNA testing ultimately matched the cigarette to Lockley.
- Detective testified that, when confronted, Lockley denied involvement but reacted to being told that a nontestifying accomplice, Andy Dabydeen, had "snitched" by saying he couldn’t believe Dabydeen had done so.
- The People introduced the detective’s recounting of Dabydeen’s out-of-court statement implicating Lockley; Dabydeen did not testify at trial.
- Lockley was convicted of second-degree murder (felony murder) and related charges; on appeal the main contention was a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation from admitting Dabydeen’s testimonial statement through the detective.
- The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial, concluding the admission of the accomplice’s testimonial statement violated Crawford and was not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Lockley’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of accomplice’s out-of-court statement through detective (Confrontation Clause) | Statement was used to show Lockley’s reaction, not for its truth; alternatively detective may have used a ruse | Admission of Dabydeen’s testimonial statement through the detective deprived Lockley of his right to confront his accuser (Crawford) | Reversed: admission violated the Sixth Amendment under Crawford; new trial ordered |
| Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Strong circumstantial case (DNA, eyewitness) so error harmless | Dabydeen’s statement was the only direct evidence tying Lockley to the shooting; thus not harmless | Not harmless: reasonable possibility the statement contributed to conviction |
| Double jeopardy / prior acquittal of intentional murder barring retrial for felony murder | Retrial for felony murder permissible under Blockburger and NY authority | Prior acquittal of intentional murder should preclude retrial on related felony-murder theory | Rejected: prior acquittal did not bar retrial for felony murder |
| Alleged juror partiality from court’s voir dire remarks | Failure to preserve objection on appeal; remarks did not warrant reversal | Court’s comments (e.g., telling jurors not to change minds) biased prospective jurors and warranted reversal | Not preserved; although some remarks inappropriate, not reversible error; strong disapproval expressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
- People v. Hardy, 4 N.Y.3d 192 (New York authority applying confrontation principles)
- Orlando v. Nassau County Dist. Attorney's Office, 915 F.3d 113 (2d Cir.) (discusses when a statement offered to explain a defendant’s reaction may nevertheless be prejudicial hearsay)
- People v. Reynoso, 2 N.Y.3d 820 (addresses limits on prosecutorial use of out-of-court statements and jury instructions)
- People v. Johnson, 27 N.Y.3d 60 (harmless error analysis where improperly admitted evidence is significant to the prosecution’s case)