People v. McDaniels, 793 N.E.2d 383 (N.Y. 2003)
A prosecutor’s summation argument that a witness’s identification of a defendant is more reliable because both are of the same race is improper when race-based identification was not part of the trial record and the evidence of guilt is not overwhelming.
Summary
McDaniels was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon. During summation, the prosecutor argued that the identification of McDaniels by a witness was “more reliable” because both were African-American. The defense objected, but the objection was overruled. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the prosecutor’s race-based argument was improper because the issue of race-based identification formed no part of the record and the proof of guilt was not overwhelming. The court emphasized that the error was compounded by the trial court’s failure to provide a curative instruction.
Facts
An altercation involving a crowd occurred on a public street. Andrew Washington, an off-duty employee of the Rennselaer County Sheriff’s Office, witnessed the event. Washington saw a crowd chasing and beating someone. He then heard a gunshot and saw a young African-American male holding a handgun. Washington identified McDaniels, who is also African-American, as the shooter to the police at the scene. At trial, Washington’s in-court identification was the only direct evidence linking McDaniels to the gun. McDaniels presented witnesses who claimed he was present but did not fire the weapon.
Procedural History
Following a jury verdict, McDaniels was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The dissenting Justice at the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether it is proper for a prosecutor to argue in summation that a witness’s identification of a defendant is “more reliable” because both the witness and the defendant are of the same race, when the issue of race-based identification was not introduced as evidence during the trial.
Holding
No, because the prosecutor’s argument introduced an issue outside the record, improperly vouched for the witness’s credibility, and the error was not harmless given that the case turned on the jury’s assessment of a single witness.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor’s summation was improper. The court reasoned that the issue of race-based identification was not part of the trial record. By raising it during closing arguments, the prosecutor had the last word on a subject not properly before the jury. The court emphasized that this error was compounded by the trial court’s failure to give a curative instruction. The court explicitly stated that it was not addressing the admissibility of expert testimony on cross-racial identifications, as that issue was not before them. The court stated: “By raising it for the first time during closing argument, the prosecutor had the sole, final, inapt word on the subject. Moreover, the error was compounded by the court’s failure to give a curative instruction or otherwise rectify the situation. Instead, it overruled the objection, and thus allowed the prosecutor to vouch improperly for the credibility of the witness by arguing that intraracial identifications are ‘more reliable.’” Since the proof of defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming and the case turned on the jury’s assessment of a single witness, the error was not harmless. Therefore, the Court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial.