Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealhearingprosecutorgrand jury
defendantappealhearingtrialparoleprosecutorjury trial

Related Cases

Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42
View Case »
Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,679, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,389
View Case »
In re Nassau County Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated June 24, 2003, 4 N.Y.3d 665, 830 N.E.2d 1118, 797 N.Y.S.2d 790, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 03582
View Case »
University Of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916, 185 Ed. Law Rep. 122, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1886
View Case »
Sharper Image Corp. v. Honeywell Intern., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 621
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

People v. Darrett, 2 A.D.3d 16, 769 N.Y.S.2d 14, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 19108

Facts

Defendant and his codefendant Darryl Powell were indicted for the murder of Freddy Pina, with allegations that Powell offered defendant $2,000 to commit the murder. The defendant had initially expressed his intent to testify before the grand jury but later withdrew that notice after the codefendant was indicted. The case was presented to the grand jury, and the prosecutor instructed the jurors to consider the charges separately. The defendant made several statements to the police, initially denying guilt but later admitting to the shooting, which led to the Huntley hearing to determine the voluntariness of those statements.

Defendant and his codefendant Darryl Powell were indicted for the murder of Freddy Pina. The People alleged that on September 10, 1997, Powell, who is defendant's brother-in-law, offered defendant $2,000 to murder Pina.

Issue

Whether the prosecutor properly questioned the defendant about the truth of contradictory out-of-court statements and whether the defendant was denied a fair Huntley hearing.

Whether the prosecutor properly questioned the defendant about the truth of contradictory out-of-court statements and whether the defendant was denied a fair Huntley hearing.

Rule

The truth of a confession is generally irrelevant at a Huntley hearing unless the defendant opens the door to such inquiry by affirmatively stating or implying innocence. A defendant's right to testify does not include the right to commit perjury.

It is well settled that the truth of a confession is irrelevant at a Huntley hearing. An exception arises when a defendant opens the door to such inquiry by affirmatively stating or even implying his innocence.

Analysis

The court found that the prosecutor's questioning was appropriate given the context of the defendant's statements. The defendant's attempt to assert innocence while also claiming coercion in his later statements created a situation where the prosecutor was entitled to inquire about the truth of those statements. However, the court determined that the defense counsel's disclosures regarding potential perjury compromised the fairness of the hearing, necessitating a new hearing.

Defendant cannot have it both ways. He cannot take the stand and deliberately parse his words, and, without being challenged, avoid saying whether his first exculpatory statement was true, but then claim that he was coerced into giving the purportedly false second and third inculpatory statements.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the appeal should be held in abeyance and the matter remanded for a new Huntley hearing before a different justice due to the denial of a fair hearing.

Accordingly, the appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered November 30, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the first degree, and sentencing him to life without parole, should be held in abeyance, and the matter remanded for a new Huntley hearing before a different justice.

Who won?

The defendant prevailed in the appeal as the court found that he was denied a fair Huntley hearing, which warranted a new hearing.

The court held that the defendant was denied a fair Huntley hearing due to the trial court's misstatements regarding perjury.

You must be