27 N.Y.3d 433 (2016)

The advocate-witness rule requires an attorney to withdraw if it becomes apparent that she must testify on behalf of her client, and collateral estoppel should not be applied where it would require a witness to materially alter their testimony or provide a misleading account.

Summary

In People v. Ortiz, the New York Court of Appeals addressed two issues: the applicability of collateral estoppel in a criminal case and the advocate-witness rule. The defendant was acquitted of first-degree burglary (which required the use of a dangerous instrument), but was later tried for second-degree burglary. The prosecution sought to introduce evidence of a razor blade, which the defendant’s counsel objected to based on collateral estoppel. The court held that collateral estoppel did not apply because it would require key witnesses to materially alter their testimony. The court also addressed the advocate-witness rule, concluding that the trial court erred when it did not allow defense counsel to withdraw after a prior statement made by counsel at arraignment was used to impeach the defendant’s testimony. The court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Facts

Luis Ortiz was charged with burglary and related offenses. The prosecution alleged that Ortiz, while holding a razor blade to the victim’s neck, forced his way into an apartment. At the first trial, Ortiz testified to a different version of events, claiming a fight. The jury acquitted him of first-degree burglary (which required the use of a dangerous instrument) but convicted him of second-degree burglary. At a second trial for second-degree burglary, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence of the razor blade. Additionally, during cross-examination, the prosecutor introduced a statement made by defense counsel at arraignment, which contradicted the defendant’s testimony. Defense counsel moved to withdraw, arguing that her testimony was necessary. The trial court denied her motion, and the defendant was convicted.

Procedural History

Ortiz was initially convicted of second-degree burglary but acquitted of first-degree burglary. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction for reasons not relevant. At the second trial, the trial court allowed evidence of the razor blade and denied defense counsel’s motion to withdraw. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by vacating the sentence and remanding the case for resentencing, and affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether collateral estoppel barred the introduction of evidence regarding the razor blade at the second trial.

2. Whether the trial court erred when it did not allow defense counsel to withdraw or declare a mistrial after her prior statement was used to impeach the defendant.

Holding

1. No, because collateral estoppel did not apply.

2. Yes, because the trial court should have granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw or declared a mistrial.

Court’s Reasoning

The court analyzed the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which prevents the relitigation of issues decided in a defendant’s favor in a prior trial. The court found that in this case, the practical difficulties of applying collateral estoppel outweighed its benefits. Witnesses would have to materially alter their testimony and mislead the jury to omit reference to the razor blade. This presented an