People v. Johnson, 47 N.Y.2d 882 (1979)
A defendant who makes admissions on cross-examination about a collateral matter should be allowed to offer rebuttal evidence to explain those admissions, but the erroneous exclusion of such evidence can be deemed harmless if there is overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Summary
The defendant, a probationary police officer, was convicted of selling heroin. During cross-examination, the prosecution elicited admissions from the defendant regarding unusually large cash resources available to him. The trial court then prevented the defendant from introducing evidence to explain these admissions, citing the collateral issue rule. The Court of Appeals held that while the trial court erred in preventing the defendant from explaining his admissions, the error was harmless because of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, including his admission that narcotics were found in his possession after his arrest and the implausibility of his explanation for possessing them.
Facts
The defendant, a probationary police officer, was arrested and charged with selling 50 packets of heroin to a police officer for $170.
After his arrest, narcotics were found in his possession.
During cross-examination, the prosecution questioned the defendant about large cash resources accessible to him, despite his limited income. The defendant made certain admissions regarding these resources.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at trial.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in prohibiting the defendant from offering rebuttal evidence to explain admissions made during cross-examination regarding collateral matters.
Whether the erroneous exclusion of such rebuttal evidence constitutes harmless error where there is overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt.
Holding
Yes, because the collateral issue rule should not bar a party who makes admissions on cross-examination from explaining them with rebuttal evidence.
Yes, because in light of the all but conclusive proof of the defendant’s guilt, the error was harmless under the statutory harmless error rule (CPL 470.05, subd. 1).
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that while the collateral issue rule prevents an adversary from offering contradictory proof on a collateral matter, it should not prevent the party who made admissions on cross-examination about such a matter from explaining those admissions. The court emphasized that the excluded evidence pertained to a collateral matter—the defendant’s cash resources—which became relevant only because the prosecution raised it during cross-examination. The prosecution could not have independently disproven the defendant’s denials regarding this collateral issue. However, the trial court improperly extended the collateral issue rule to prevent the defendant from explaining his partial admissions. Even if the defendant had been allowed to introduce the excluded evidence, it would have explained only a portion of the bank accounts accessible to him, leaving a substantial amount of unexplained cash resources. Furthermore, the court pointed to the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, including his admission to possessing narcotics after his arrest and his implausible explanation for such possession. The court distinguished the case from situations where harmlessness is determined by merely balancing the evidence for and against the defendant, stating that “harmlessness of error is not to be found merely by balancing the evidence in favor of and against the defendant”. The court acknowledged the error, but held that the error was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence against the defendant, combined with the limited impact the excluded evidence would have had even if admitted. The court stated, “The excluded evidence became relevant only because the prosecution in cross-examination of defendant on a concededly collateral matter educed partial admissions of a collateral fact, that is, unusually large cash resources owned or available to defendant, a person of limited income.”