People v. Hill, 79 N.Y.2d 1078 (1992)
A proper foundation for cross-examination of an alibi witness about their failure to come forward prior to trial requires showing the witness was aware of the charge, knew they possessed exculpatory information, had a reasonable motive to act, and knew how to make the information available to law enforcement.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for second-degree robbery, holding that the prosecution properly impeached the defendant’s alibi witnesses. The witnesses had failed to provide exculpatory information to law enforcement at the arrest scene, the station house, and during an aborted meeting with the trial assistant. The Court found that a proper foundation was laid for questioning the witnesses about the aborted meeting, where they refused to speak without defense counsel present, because it was not shown that the defense counsel instructed the witnesses to remain silent. The jury was properly instructed on how to weigh the impeachment evidence.
Facts
The defendant was identified by a cab driver as the person who had robbed him. Police officers arrested the defendant and frisked him and his three companions, releasing the companions. Two of these companions were alibi witnesses for the defendant at trial. The alibi witnesses claimed they tried to tell the police at the station house that the defendant was with them at a nightclub and could not have committed the robbery, but no one listened. Police officers disputed this, stating the witnesses never offered exculpatory information.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of second-degree robbery after a jury trial. Prior to the defense’s case, the trial court ruled the People could question the alibi witnesses about an aborted meeting with the trial assistant. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution properly impeached the defendant’s alibi witnesses by questioning them about their failure to provide exculpatory information to law enforcement before trial, specifically concerning their silence at the arrest scene, the station house, and during an aborted meeting with the Assistant District Attorney.
Holding
Yes, because a proper Dawson foundation was laid for cross-examination regarding the aborted interview with the Assistant District Attorney, and the defense failed to preserve the issues regarding the arrest scene and station house by not objecting on Dawson grounds.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on People v. Dawson, which outlines the foundation required to cross-examine an alibi witness about their pre-trial silence. This foundation requires showing that the witness: (1) was aware of the charges against the defendant; (2) knew they possessed exculpatory information; (3) had a reasonable motive to act; and (4) was familiar with the means of making the information available to law enforcement. The Court found that the defense failed to object on Dawson grounds to the questioning about the witnesses’ silence at the arrest scene and station house, thus those issues were not preserved for review. However, the Court found that a proper Dawson foundation was laid for questioning the witnesses about the aborted interview with the Assistant District Attorney, where the witnesses refused to speak without defense counsel present. Because there was no indication that defense counsel instructed the witnesses to remain silent, the witnesses’ discomfort was not a reason to exclude questioning. The Court stated that “As is true in any instance in which impeachment evidence is offered, the trier of fact may reasonably be expected to weigh the available information and determine for itself whether the witness’ trial testimony is consistent with his prior behavior and assertions.” The trial judge provided appropriate limiting instructions, which defense counsel did not object to, regarding the impeachment value of the witnesses’ failure to come forward before trial.