People v. Velez, 73 N.Y.2d 735 (1988)
When a constitutional error occurs during a criminal trial, such as admitting illegally obtained evidence, a conviction can only stand if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.
Summary
Defendant was convicted of robbery. The trial court admitted photographs of leather jackets that had been suppressed as the product of an unlawful search and seizure. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of the conviction, holding that the admission of the photographs, although conceded to be constitutional error by the prosecution, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the prosecution’s case was not overwhelming, the complainant’s credibility was questionable, and the photographs corroborated the complainant’s testimony and were specifically requested by the jury during deliberations.
Facts
The defendant was indicted for allegedly taking two leather jackets from the complainant at gunpoint.
Prior to trial, the court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the two leather jackets, finding that they were the product of an unlawful search and seizure.
At trial, over defense counsel’s objection, the People introduced photographs of the suppressed leather jackets as evidence in their direct case.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the defendant.
The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding that the admission of the photographs was error.
The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals by leave of the dissenting Justice at the Appellate Division.
Issue(s)
Whether the admission of photographs of evidence suppressed as the product of an unlawful search and seizure was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holding
No, because there was a reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence contributed to the conviction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals stated that to determine whether a constitutional error is harmless, a court must assess the quantum and nature of the evidence against the defendant if the error were excised, and the causal effect the error may have had on the jury. The court referenced People v. Hamlin, 71 NY2d 750, 756, and noted the standard for harmless error is whether “there is no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence contributed to the conviction”.
In this case, the prosecution’s case was not overwhelming, relying heavily on the testimony of the complainant, whose credibility was questionable due to his extensive criminal history. Moreover, the photographs of the leather jackets corroborated the complainant’s testimony that he possessed the jackets and were the first items the jury requested during deliberations.
Because the photographs were the only evidence corroborating the complainant’s story and were specifically requested by the jury, the court found a reasonable possibility that they influenced the verdict. Therefore, the error in admitting the photographs was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reasoned that under these specific facts, the error warranted reversal of the conviction. This case highlights the importance of excluding illegally obtained evidence and the high standard required to deem the admission of such evidence as harmless error.