People v. Ennis, 11 N.Y.3d 403 (2008)

An attorney’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel if the evidence would have been inadmissible at trial.

Summary

Sheldon Ennis was convicted of conspiracy and assault charges. Before sentencing, his attorney moved to reverse the assault conviction, arguing a Brady violation because the prosecution failed to disclose that Ennis’s brother, Aaron, had stated he shot the victim and Sheldon was not present. The attorney learned of the statement during trial but did not disclose it because he promised Aaron’s attorney he wouldn’t. The trial court denied the motion, stating the attorney could have acted sooner. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that even if the statement was disclosed, it was inadmissible hearsay, as Aaron would invoke his Fifth Amendment right and it did not fall under the declaration against penal interest exception. Therefore, the attorney’s failure to disclose did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

Facts

Sheldon Ennis, his brother Aaron, and Keith Taylor were indicted on conspiracy and assault charges related to their drug operation. The Ennis brothers ran their operation from a hotel, violently punishing rival drug dealers who encroached on their territory. Frank Brown, a rival dealer, was shot at after a dispute. Billy Moody, who was with Brown, was paralyzed. Months later, the Ennis brothers stabbed Clarence Calwell and Randolph Sherman, also rival dealers. Sheldon was convicted of conspiracy, assault related to the Moody shooting, and assault related to the Calwell and Sherman stabbings.

Procedural History

Following the verdict but before sentencing, Sheldon’s attorney filed a CPL 330.30 motion alleging a Brady violation concerning Aaron’s statement. The trial court denied the motion. Sheldon then filed a CPL 440.10 motion, again arguing a Brady violation and ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion court denied this as well. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether defense counsel’s promise not to reveal exculpatory information created a conflict of interest requiring reversal of the conviction.

2. Whether defense counsel’s failure to use Aaron’s statement at trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holding

1. No, because the alleged conflict was subjective and did not operate on the representation.

2. No, because Aaron’s statement was inadmissible, and counsel is not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless argument.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals determined that the alleged conflict of interest was based on the attorney’s subjective personal dilemma rather than on objective facts. The court stated, “Many (perhaps most) attorneys would not have perceived any conflict; having learned information that they deemed useful to their client, they presumably would have pursued one of several available courses of action.” Even if a conflict existed, the Appellate Division’s rejection of the argument that counsel’s failure resulted from the conflict was supported by the record. The court emphasized, “Whether a conflict of interest operates on the defense is a mixed question of law and fact and, as a result, our review is limited. We may disturb an Appellate, Division determination on this issue only if it lacks any record support”. Regarding the ineffective assistance claim, the court noted that counsel performed effectively in other respects, securing acquittals on the most serious charges. Aaron’s statement was inadmissible because Aaron would have invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. Also, the statement did not fall under the declaration against penal interest exception. The court explained, “courts admit only the portion of (the) statement which is opposed to the declarant’s interest since the guarantee of reliability contained in declarations against penal interest exists only to the extent the statement is disserving to the declarant”. Because the statement was inadmissible, the failure to raise a Brady objection did not constitute ineffective assistance. The court stated, “an attorney is not deemed ineffective for failing to pursue an argument that had little or no chance of success.”