People v. Wright, 25 N.Y.3d 964 (2015)
r
r
A prosecutor’s summation that strays beyond the evidence and applicable legal principles, combined with defense counsel’s failure to object, can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel and warrant a new trial, especially when witness credibility is a central issue.
r
r
Summary
r
Defendant was convicted of sex offenses based on his nieces’ testimony. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding that the prosecutor engaged in egregious misconduct during summation by referencing facts not in evidence, bolstering witness credibility improperly, and minimizing benefits received by a key witness. The Court also found that defense counsel’s failure to object to these improprieties constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly given the reliance on witness credibility for the conviction and the lack of strategic reason for the omissions.
r
r
Facts
r
Defendant was accused of sexually abusing his two nieces while they were in his care. The alleged abuse was not medically confirmed. The defense suggested the children’s mother, who had a history of abuse and a potential financial motive, influenced the accusations. A convicted murderer, Raymond Burse, testified that the defendant confessed to him while in jail. The defense argued Burse obtained the information from the defendant’s legal papers and was offered leniency in exchange for his testimony.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Defendant was convicted of sex offenses and sentenced to a 20-year prison term. The defendant appealed, arguing prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether the prosecutor’s statements during summation constituted prosecutorial misconduct?
r
2. Whether defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s improper statements constituted ineffective assistance of counsel?
r
r
Holding
r
1. Yes, because the prosecutor encouraged inferences of guilt based on facts not in evidence, improperly bolstered witness credibility, and minimized the benefit a witness received for his testimony.
r
2. Yes, because defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s improper statements, especially in a case hinging on witness credibility, deprived the defendant of effective assistance of counsel.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals found that the prosecutor’s summation exceeded the bounds of permissible advocacy. Specifically, the prosecutor improperly bolstered the children’s credibility by referencing prior consistent statements that were not in evidence, implying the children had consistently reported the abuse to various individuals. The court cited People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 (1976) stating “it is fundamental that counsel, in summing up, must stay within the four corners of the evidence and avoid irrelevant comments which have no bearing on any legitimate issue in the case.