New York Law Review

Tag: Accomplice Testimony

  • People v. Morhouse, 21 N.Y.2d 66 (1967): Establishing Aider and Abettor Liability

    People v. Morhouse, 21 N.Y.2d 66 (1967)

    To be liable as an aider and abettor, a defendant must share the intent of the principal actor and take actions that encourage or induce the commission of the crime.

    Summary

    Morhouse, a political leader, was convicted of bribery and taking unlawful fees for his role in securing a liquor license for the New York Playboy Club by bribing Martin Epstein, Chairman of the State Liquor Authority. The prosecution argued Morhouse aided and abetted both the Playboy people in bribing Epstein and Epstein in taking unlawful fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to show Morhouse knew Epstein was to be bribed and that he encouraged the bribers, establishing a sufficient identity of interest between Morhouse and Epstein. The court remanded for a hearing on potential eavesdropping violations.

    Facts

    Playboy representatives initially agreed to bribe Epstein for a liquor license. This deal stalled. Epstein suggested involving Morhouse to resolve the issues. Morhouse agreed to help secure the license for $100,000, indicating knowledge of the prior corrupt arrangement with Epstein. After Morhouse’s involvement, Epstein told Berger, a Playboy representative, that he and Morhouse had discussed the deal and instructed Berger to pay Epstein his $50,000. Epstein eventually received half of his bribe.

    Procedural History

    Morhouse was convicted in the Supreme Court, New York County, of bribery and taking unlawful fees. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove Morhouse’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    2. Whether the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated.
    3. Whether the court orders authorizing eavesdropping were properly issued and executed and, if not, whether the evidence presented at trial was tainted by any improper eavesdropping.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because Morhouse knew of the corrupt agreement and encouraged the bribers to continue, satisfying the requirements for aider and abettor liability.
    2. Yes, because there was non-accomplice evidence fairly tending to connect Morhouse with the commission of the crime.
    3. Remanded for a hearing to determine whether the court orders authorizing eavesdropping were properly issued and executed under the law as it was understood at the time and to determine if the People’s evidence was tainted.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that Morhouse could be held liable as an aider and abettor because he knew Epstein was to be bribed and attached himself to the bribers’ cause, encouraging them to continue with the corrupt agreement. Morhouse’s representation that he could handle Epstein induced them to consummate the agreement. The court distinguished this case from others where the defendant had no personal interest in the crime’s commission. Here, Morhouse’s payment depended on the Playboy Club getting the license, requiring Epstein to fulfill his bargain. The court found sufficient corroboration of the accomplice testimony. Non-accomplice testimony showed Morhouse’s arrangement for payment by Playboy through its publishing affiliate and his efforts to shift the payment on the books after the Grand Jury investigation began. Regarding the eavesdropping, the court held that Morhouse had standing to object to bugs and wiretaps of his own business office and phone calls. The court remanded for a hearing to determine the propriety of these eavesdrops and whether they tainted the evidence. The court noted that the prosecution’s conduct in maintaining electronic surveillance of Morhouse’s office after he became a suspect and was known to confer with his attorney raised concerns about potential interference with his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

  • People v. Diaz, 19 N.Y.2d 547 (1967): Accomplice Testimony and the Requirement of Corroboration

    People v. Diaz, 19 N.Y.2d 547 (1967)

    A conviction cannot stand solely on the testimony of an accomplice, including a codefendant testifying in their own defense, unless that testimony is corroborated by other evidence connecting the defendant to the crime.

    Summary

    Diaz and Green were charged with grand larceny and related crimes. At trial, Green, a codefendant, testified against Diaz, implicating him in the crime. The trial court refused to instruct the jury that Green’s testimony required corroboration, believing it unnecessary when the accomplice is a codefendant. The Appellate Division agreed this was error, but deemed it harmless. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the jury should have been instructed on the need for corroboration of accomplice testimony, regardless of whether the accomplice is a codefendant, and that the error was not harmless because the jury’s verdict may have relied heavily on Green’s uncorroborated testimony.

    Facts

    Police officers observed Diaz driving a car pushing another car, which was later identified as stolen, with Green behind the wheel of the stolen vehicle. As the officers approached, Green fled. Diaz drove off. Green testified against Diaz at trial, detailing Diaz’s involvement in the crime and identifying a transmission in Diaz’s car as belonging to the stolen vehicle.

    Procedural History

    Diaz was convicted of concealing and withholding stolen property. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, acknowledging that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury about the need for corroboration of accomplice testimony, but held the error harmless. Diaz appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a conviction can be upheld when based on the uncorroborated testimony of a codefendant implicating the defendant in the commission of a crime, where the trial court failed to instruct the jury that accomplice testimony requires corroboration under Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    Holding

    No, because Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates corroboration of accomplice testimony, and this requirement applies regardless of whether the accomplice is a codefendant testifying in their own defense; therefore, the failure to so instruct the jury was prejudicial error.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the plain language of Section 399, which states, “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless he be corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.” The court found no basis in the statute to distinguish between an accomplice who is merely a witness and one who is a codefendant testifying in their own behalf. The court noted that the jury might have relied heavily on Green’s testimony, particularly regarding the transmission, which was a key piece of evidence. The court reasoned that, despite the existence of other evidence, the jury could have discredited that evidence, leaving Green’s uncorroborated testimony as the primary basis for the conviction. Quoting People v. Wallin, 32 Cal. 2d 803, 809, the court stated: “‘Although there was evidence which, if believed, was corroborative of the testimony of [the accomplice], defendant was clearly prejudiced by the refusal to give the requested instructions, since the jury in considering the credibility of witnesses may have rejected the corrobative evidence leaving the testimony of the accomplice to stand alone.’” The court also addressed the argument that a codefendant might be less likely to seek leniency by implicating another, stating that the District Attorney’s office could still have offered a lighter sentence to Green in exchange for his testimony against Diaz. Therefore, the court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, emphasizing the importance of instructing the jury on the need for corroboration of accomplice testimony to ensure a fair trial.