People v. Chappelle, 93 N.Y.2d 516 (1999)

A prosecutor’s repeated disregard of court rulings and introduction of prejudicial information, even when followed by curative instructions, can cumulatively deprive a defendant of a fair trial.

Summary

Diane Chappelle, a teacher, was robbed at gunpoint in her classroom. She identified the defendant, Chappelle, in photo arrays and a lineup. Prior to trial, the court ruled the lineup testimony admissible but denied the prosecution’s request for a lineup photograph. During the trial, the prosecutor repeatedly violated court orders and introduced prejudicial information, including displaying a newspaper implicating the defendant’s parents in drug activities. The Court of Appeals held that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s misconduct denied the defendant a fair trial, even with curative instructions, necessitating a new trial.

Facts

Diane Chappelle, a teacher, arrived at her classroom and was confronted by a gunman who robbed her. She identified the defendant in two photo arrays and a lineup. Before trial, the defense successfully blocked the prosecution from obtaining the lineup photo. During trial, the prosecutor asked the defense for the photo in front of the jury. The defendant testified he was home with his parents at the time of the crime. During cross-examination, the prosecutor displayed a newspaper article alleging the defendant’s parents’ drug activities.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of robbery and burglary. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, with two justices dissenting. A judge of the Court of Appeals granted the defendant’s application for leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the prosecutor’s conduct in asking for the lineup photograph in front of the jury, after the court had ruled it inadmissible, constituted prosecutorial misconduct.
2. Whether the prosecutor’s introduction of evidence regarding the defendant’s parents’ alleged drug activities, by displaying a newspaper article, constituted prosecutorial misconduct.
3. Whether the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s misconduct denied the defendant a fair trial.

Holding

1. Yes, because the prosecutor deliberately disregarded the court’s pretrial ruling, creating prejudice against the defendant in front of the jury.
2. Yes, because the prosecutor introduced prejudicial information not admitted into evidence, exceeding the bounds of fair advocacy.
3. Yes, because the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s misconduct substantially prejudiced the defendant’s rights, warranting a new trial.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the prosecutor’s conduct, taken as a whole, deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The Court emphasized that the prosecutor deliberately disregarded the trial court’s rulings. Asking for the lineup photograph in front of the jury after a pre-trial ruling against its admissibility prejudiced the defendant by implying he was hiding evidence. Displaying the newspaper article about the defendant’s parents’ alleged drug dealing introduced prejudicial information not admitted into evidence. While curative instructions were given, the Court stated that such instructions cannot always eliminate the harm. Quoting People v. Carborano, the Court stated a jury instruction cannot “always assure elimination of the harm already occasioned” (301 NY 39, 42-43). The Court emphasized that each instance of misconduct, alone, might not warrant reversal, but the cumulative effect prejudiced the defendant’s rights. The court found that “Evenhanded justice and respect for the fundamentals of a fair trial mandate the presentation of legal evidence unimpaired by intemperate conduct aimed at sidetracking the jury from its ultimate responsibility — determining facts relevant to guilt or innocence” (People v. Alicea, 37 NY2d 601, 605).