98 N.Y.2d 226 (2002)

An attorney’s statements made in court on the client’s behalf during a pretrial hearing can be used to impeach the client’s testimony at trial if the statements are inconsistent and the client was the source of the information, unless the statement is part of a withdrawn alibi notice.

Summary

These consolidated appeals address whether a defendant can be impeached at trial using prior inconsistent statements made by their attorney. In People v. Brown, the court held that the defendant could be impeached with representations his attorney made at a pretrial Sandoval hearing. In People v. Burgos-Santos, the court held that the defendant could not be impeached with a withdrawn alibi notice. The Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, finding the impeachment proper in Brown and harmless error in Burgos-Santos. This case clarifies the limitations on using prior attorney statements for impeachment, especially regarding withdrawn alibi defenses.

Facts

In Brown, the defendant was convicted of selling a controlled substance. At trial, he claimed he was merely present at the scene for innocent purposes. The prosecution impeached him with statements from his former attorney during a pretrial Sandoval hearing, where the attorney stated Brown would testify he was there to purchase cocaine. Brown was present during the Sandoval hearing. In Burgos-Santos, the defendant was convicted of murder. At trial, he claimed the shooting was accidental during an assault. The prosecution impeached him with a withdrawn alibi notice stating he was home at the time of the shooting.

Procedural History

In Brown, the trial court allowed the impeachment, and the Appellate Division affirmed. In Burgos-Santos, the trial court also allowed the impeachment, and the Appellate Division affirmed. Both cases were appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a defendant can be impeached with prior inconsistent statements made by their attorney during a pretrial hearing when the defendant was the source of the information?

2. Whether a defendant who presents a non-alibi defense can be impeached using a withdrawn alibi notice?

Holding

1. Yes, because the attorney’s statements were made on the defendant’s behalf, based on information from the defendant, and inconsistent with the defendant’s trial testimony.

2. No, because a withdrawn alibi notice should not be treated as an informal judicial admission for impeachment purposes.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding Brown, the Court relied on People v. Rivera, which permitted impeachment using an attorney’s affidavit. The Court reasoned that Brown was the source of his attorney’s statements at the Sandoval hearing, the statements were made in court to obtain a ruling, and they were inconsistent with Brown’s trial testimony. The attorney-client privilege was waived when the statements were made in open court.

Regarding Burgos-Santos, the Court distinguished Rivera, emphasizing that withdrawn alibi notices should not be used for impeachment. The Court noted the potential for such use to infringe on a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights and due process rights. The Court reasoned that allowing impeachment with withdrawn alibi notices could inhibit defendants from abandoning inaccurate defenses, undermining the truth-seeking function of the trial. Referencing Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 12.1(f), the Court adopted a common-law rule prohibiting the use of withdrawn alibi notices for impeachment. However, the Court deemed the error harmless, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the minimal probability of acquittal absent the error, citing People v. Crimmins. The Court emphasized that multiple eyewitnesses contradicted the defendant’s testimony and aligned against the defendant’s credibility, which was also diminished by his criminal history and alias usage.