5 N.Y.3d 108 (2005)

A defendant has the right to present evidence that a key prosecution witness has a bad reputation in the community for truth and veracity, provided a proper foundation is laid.

Summary

Thomas Hanley was convicted of robbery based on the testimony of two bartenders who claimed he robbed them, implying the presence of a gun. Hanley sought to introduce a witness who would testify that the bartenders had a reputation in the community for dishonesty. The trial court disallowed this testimony. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the exclusion of this reputation evidence was reversible error because the credibility of the bartenders was crucial, and the defendant had a right to present evidence challenging their truthfulness. The court also addressed that the witness worked with the bartenders. The Court of Appeals determined that the case rested largely on the bartender’s testimony and by not allowing the fellow bartender’s testimony, the jury was not able to properly assess the key witnesses’ credibility.

Facts

James McEnroe and Brendan Sean Byrne, bartenders at Wilson’s Bar, testified that Hanley robbed them on separate occasions. McEnroe stated that Hanley implied he had a gun. Byrne testified that Hanley demanded money and pointed at him, leading Byrne to believe he had a weapon. No gun was ever recovered. Hanley was charged with robbery. A third bartender was willing to testify that McEnroe and Byrne had a bad reputation in the community for truthfulness.

Procedural History

Hanley was convicted in the trial court. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, vacating one robbery count and reducing the sentence for menacing, but otherwise affirmed. Two dissenting justices believed the exclusion of the reputation evidence was a denial of a fair trial. A Justice of the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to present a witness who would testify that two key prosecution witnesses had a bad reputation in the community for truth and veracity.

Holding

Yes, because a party has a right to call a witness to testify that a key opposing witness has a bad reputation in the community for truth and veracity, provided a proper foundation has been established, and in this case, the credibility of the witnesses was essential to proving the crime charged.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on the precedent set in People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282 (1983), stating that a party has the right to call a witness to testify about the bad reputation for truthfulness of a key opposing witness. The Court emphasized that the element of displaying what appeared to be a weapon was essential to proving first-degree robbery, making the bartenders’ credibility critical. The Court also stated that the proposed witness’ testimony was not discretionary and the failure to allow the fellow bartender to testify was highly prejudicial as it deprived the jury of properly assessing the credibility of the prosecution’s key witnesses. The court stated, “[a]s we made clear in Pavao, a party may introduce reputation testimony as a matter of right if a proper foundation has been established.” The court stated that even though the trial court stated that such evidence was too “nebulous,” the defendant had a right to present a witness with personal knowledge of the bartenders’ bad reputation. A witness’ reputation among coworkers can be considered. The Court found that the exclusion of the reputation evidence could have altered the jury’s decision, warranting reversal.