People v. Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 471 (1973)
When a material alibi witness is identified and within the court’s jurisdiction, denying a short adjournment to secure their attendance, after a showing of diligence and good faith, is an abuse of discretion, especially when it effectively deprives the defendant of their defense and casts doubt on their credibility.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of burglary. Prior to the trial, the defense notified the prosecution of their intent to call alibi witnesses. On the last day of the prosecution’s case, the defense requested an adjournment to secure the attendance of two alibi witnesses: a friend, Lopez, and a building superintendent, DeJesus. Lopez had appeared the previous day but could not stay away from work another day. The defense had been unable to serve DeJesus. The trial court denied the adjournment due to a prior commitment in another county. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the denial of the adjournment was an abuse of discretion because it deprived the defendant of the fundamental right to present witnesses in his defense.
Facts
The defendant was accused of committing a burglary. The defense informed the prosecution of intent to use alibi witnesses. During opening statements, the defense told the jury the defendant would rely on an alibi defense, claiming he was at his apartment during the crime. On the last day of the prosecution’s case, the defense requested an adjournment to secure the attendance of Martin Lopez, a friend, and Mrs. Anna DeJesus, the building superintendent. Lopez had appeared the day before but could not afford to miss another day of work. The defense was unable to serve DeJesus despite living in the same building.
Procedural History
The trial court denied the defense’s request for an adjournment. The defendant testified in his own defense, stating he was at his apartment with two friends during the crime. The jury found the defendant guilty. The defendant appealed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, ordering a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for an adjournment to secure the attendance of his alibi witnesses.
Holding
Yes, because the denial deprived the defendant of the fundamental right to present witnesses in his defense, and the witness was identified, within the jurisdiction, and the defense had shown some diligence and good faith in attempting to secure their presence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the general rule that granting or denying an adjournment is within the trial court’s discretion, citing People v. Oskroba, 305 N.Y. 113, 117. However, the court emphasized a more liberal policy favoring short adjournments when a fundamental right is at stake. The court cited cases involving requests for transcripts of prior testimony, such as People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 604-605, where the court stated, “He had a fundamental right to the testimony of the witnesses who were to testify against him and, surely, one who is attempting to pay for such testimony should be given every reasonable opportunity to do so.”
The court reasoned that the right to present witnesses is a fundamental right, citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, which stated, “Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense.” The court distinguished the case from situations where the witness is unknown or outside the jurisdiction. In those situations, the court is not required to grant an adjournment.
The court found that Lopez’s testimony was material to the alibi defense. While the defendant’s efforts to secure Lopez’s presence were unsubstantiated, they were uncontested, and there was no suggestion of bad faith. The denial was based solely on the court’s prior commitment, not on the merits of the request. The court concluded that “when the witness is identified to the court, and is to be found within the jurisdiction, a request for a short adjournment after a showing of some diligence and good faith should not be denied merely because of possible inconvenience to the court or others.”
The court emphasized that denying the adjournment effectively deprived the defendant of his defense and cast doubt on his credibility. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion, and the conviction was reversed.