People v. Spears, 64 N.Y.2d 698 (1984)
A trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a defendant a brief adjournment to consult with counsel about whether to testify, especially when the codefendant’s unexpected resting of their case necessitates such consultation.
Summary
Spears was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance. After the prosecution rested and the co-defendant rested unexpectedly, Spears’s attorney requested a brief adjournment to consult with his client about whether Spears should testify. The trial court denied the request and directed Spears to proceed immediately. Spears rested without presenting evidence. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the brief adjournment, thereby violating Spears’s right to counsel.
Facts
Spears was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance and tried jointly with a co-defendant.
After the prosecution presented its case and rested, the co-defendant testified and then rested unexpectedly when their final witness did not appear.
Spears’s counsel requested an adjournment until the following morning to decide how to proceed, emphasizing the unexpected turn of events. The court denied the request.
The court only allowed Spears’s counsel a few seconds to confer with his client before demanding that Spears proceed, leading Spears to rest without presenting evidence.
Procedural History
Spears was convicted of criminal possession in the fourth degree.
Spears moved for a mistrial, arguing that he was compelled to decide whether to testify without proper consultation with counsel; the motion was denied.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s request for a brief adjournment to consult with his attorney regarding his decision to testify, thereby violating the defendant’s right to counsel.
Holding
Yes, because under the circumstances, the court’s conduct in denying even “a few minutes” delay was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that granting adjournments is generally within the trial court’s discretion. However, this discretion is more narrowly construed when fundamental rights are at stake.
The court emphasized that Spears’s request for a brief delay implicated his fundamental right to effectively confer with counsel, guaranteed by the New York Constitution.
“Here, counsel requested a brief delay, after the codefendant testified and rested unexpectedly, to consult with his client about taking the stand, implicating defendant’s fundamental right effectively to confer with his counsel (see NY Const, art I, § 6; People v Narayan, 54 NY2d 106,112). In these circumstances, the court’s conduct in denying even ‘a few minutes’ delay was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.”
The court rejected the argument that Spears’s failure to renew the request to reopen his case after an overnight recess waived the issue, noting that Spears should not be faulted for electing not to risk further prejudice after the court’s repeated and sharp injunctions to proceed.