People v. Cioffi, 1 N.Y.2d 70 (1956)

It is prejudicial error to admit evidence that a victim selected the defendant’s photograph from police files, as it implies the defendant has a prior criminal record.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed judgments and ordered a new trial, holding it was prejudicial error to admit evidence of the victim’s selection of the defendants’ photographs from police files. The court reasoned that such evidence creates an inference that the defendants had prior criminal records, which is inadmissible. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant Cicatelli was entitled to a full inquiry into the voluntariness of his confession, even though he denied making it, and that the trial court erred in not independently determining the issue of voluntariness.

Facts

The specific facts of the underlying crime are not extensively detailed in the Court of Appeals decision, but the case involves a criminal trial where the victim identified the defendants by selecting their photographs from police files. The prosecution presented this identification evidence at trial, and it was also used during summation.

Procedural History

The trial court allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of the victim’s selection of the defendants’ photographs from police files. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial.

Issue(s)

1. Whether it is prejudicial error to admit evidence that the victim selected the defendant’s photograph from police files?

2. Whether a defendant who denies making a confession is entitled to a full and independent inquiry by the court into the voluntariness of a purported confession?

3. Whether the jury should decide on arguable circumstances if force and fear established fits closely into the pattern of extortion or could be regarded as robbery?

Holding

1. Yes, because introducing evidence that the victim selected the defendant’s photograph from police files implies the defendant has a prior criminal record, which is generally inadmissible and prejudicial.

2. Yes, because the court has a duty to independently determine the voluntariness of a confession, especially when the defendant presents evidence contesting its voluntariness, regardless of whether the defendant admits to making the confession.

3. Yes, because in arguable circumstances the jury should decide if force and fear established fits closely into the pattern of extortion or could be regarded as robbery.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that allowing the victim to testify about selecting the defendant’s photograph from police files, and allowing a detective to corroborate this selection, creates an impermissible inference that the photographs in the police files were those of the defendants. This inference suggests that the defendants had prior encounters with law enforcement, thereby prejudicing the jury against them.

Regarding the confession, the court stated that the defendant was entitled to a full inquiry into its voluntary nature, even though he denied making any confession. The court emphasized that even when the issue of voluntariness is ultimately submitted to the jury, the court must first independently determine the issue, especially where the defendant presents evidence challenging the confession’s voluntariness. The court cited People v. Stigler, 9 N.Y.2d 717, 719, acknowledging that there might be some circumstances where it may be proper not to determine the question. However, because of defendant’s proof, the determination of the facts separately by court and jury should have also been decided by the court.

The court also determined that the jury should decide on arguable circumstances if force and fear established fits closely into the pattern of extortion or could be regarded as robbery. The court cited People v. Bodkin, 304 Ill. 124 (1922); Montsdoca v. State, 84 Fla. 82 (1922); State v. Bell, 228 N. C. 659 (1948).