48 N.Y.2d 897 (1979)

A trial court does not err in refusing to allow defense counsel to conduct an in-court lineup for cross-examination, nor is it required to provide a jury with materials not admitted into evidence or allow a juror to argue for access to such materials.

Summary

Errol Pearce appealed a decision upholding his conviction. He argued the trial court erred by denying his request to conduct an in-court lineup for cross-examination of a prosecution witness and by denying the jury’s request for a police report not admitted into evidence. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the trial court acted properly in both instances. The Court reasoned that the defense’s request for an in-court lineup was properly denied, and the court was correct in refusing the jury’s request for a document not in evidence, especially when the jury later received relevant testimony.

Facts

Errol Pearce was convicted, presumably of a crime based on police involvement, although the specific crime is not detailed in this memorandum decision. During the trial, Pearce’s counsel sought to cross-examine a prosecution witness by staging an in-court lineup involving Pearce and his brothers. The trial court denied this request. During jury deliberations, the jury requested the police report from the night of the incident. This report had not been admitted into evidence, and the court denied the request. A juror attempted to argue for the report’s relevance, but the court stopped the juror, stating they could only consider evidence presented at trial.

Procedural History

The case reached the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. Pearce then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order upholding the conviction.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow defense counsel to cross-examine a prosecution witness by holding a lineup in court with the defendant’s brothers participating.
2. Whether the court improperly denied a request made by a juror during deliberations for a police report that had not been admitted into evidence.

Holding

1. No, because the allowance of such a demonstration is within the trial court’s discretion.
2. No, because the jury is not entitled to evidence that was not admitted at trial.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in refusing the in-court lineup. The court also found no error in denying the jury’s request for the police report, as it was not in evidence. The Court noted that the trial court properly informed the jury that they could only consider evidence presented at trial. The Court dismissed the defendant’s argument that the juror was actually seeking testimony related to the police report, noting that defense counsel at trial also interpreted the request as being for the report itself and requested a reading of relevant testimony, which the court was not obligated to provide sua sponte. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the jury later requested and received a reading of the officer’s testimony, indicating they understood the proper procedure for obtaining such information and effectively negating any claim that they were denied access to relevant testimony.