People v. Taylor
2017 NY Slip Op 7649
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Defendant Daniel Taylor was convicted (2013) of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon (knife) after an altercation outside a concert; victim suffered a large abdominal laceration.
- The People's case relied primarily on a cabdriver witness who testified he saw defendant push the victim to the ground and crouch over him; the victim had limited memory.
- Defendant testified he was attacked from behind, was fearful due to a dislocating shoulder, drew a pocketknife to scare the attacker and did not stab the victim.
- On direct appeal the conviction was affirmed. Defendant later filed a CPL 440.10 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for four failures: (1) not impeaching the cabdriver with a prior inconsistent statement, (2) not requesting assault in the third degree as a lesser included offense, (3) not objecting to an alleged coercive Allen charge, and (4) failing to adequately request a justification (Penal Law § 35.05) jury instruction.
- County Court summarily denied the CPL 440.10 motion as procedurally barred; the Appellate Division (Third Dept.) reversed, holding the mixed record/nonrecord ineffective-assistance claim was properly considered on CPL 440.10 and that counsel’s cumulative errors deprived defendant of meaningful representation, entitling him to a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mixed claims (record + nonrecord) of ineffective assistance are procedurally barred on CPL 440.10 | All alleged failures could have been raised on direct appeal and are therefore barred | Mixed claims must be considered together on CPL 440.10 because some alleged failings depend on matters outside the trial record | Mixed ineffective-assistance claims are not procedurally barred on CPL 440.10; review of the claim in its entirety is permitted |
| Whether counsel’s failure to impeach the cabdriver with his prior inconsistent statement was deficient | Counsel’s performance was adequate; any impeachment issue could/should have been raised earlier | Failure to impeach was not strategic — prior deposition contradicted trial testimony and was critical to undermining the People’s case | Failure to impeach was unreasonable and lacked a plausible strategic explanation; serious error |
| Whether counsel inadequately requested a justification instruction (Penal Law § 35.05) | The request was insufficiently articulated; defendant not entitled to the charge | Counsel muddled requests (confused § 35.05 with § 35.15), preventing proper jury instruction on necessity/justification | Counsel failed to clearly present the § 35.05 justification request; defendant was entitled to that instruction based on the evidence |
| Whether cumulative errors deprived defendant of meaningful representation and require a new trial | Any single error was harmless; some issues were strategic | The cumulative effect of failures (impeachment + jury instruction + others) undermined fairness; conviction hinged on credibility | Court holds cumulative deficiencies deprived defendant of meaningful representation — new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852 (N.Y. 1978) (postconviction collateral proceedings often required to develop ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708 (N.Y. 1998) (ineffective-assistance inquiry evaluates counsel’s performance in totality)
- People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981) (review focuses on seriousness of cumulative errors)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (mixed record/nonrecord claims of ineffective assistance properly raised in collateral proceedings)
- People v. Cummings, 16 N.Y.3d 784 (N.Y. 2011) (core inquiry is whether counsel’s performance viewed in totality was meaningful representation)
- People v. Wright, 25 N.Y.3d 769 (N.Y. 2015) (review must consider the seriousness of errors in their totality)
- People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2011) (a claim of ineffective assistance constitutes a single ground that may include record and nonrecord matters)
- People v. Petty, 7 N.Y.3d 277 (N.Y. 2006) (defendant who is initial aggressor generally not entitled to justification defense)
- People v. Maher, 79 N.Y.2d 978 (N.Y. 1992) (defining when justification instructions are required)