People v. Berrios, 99 N.Y.2d 50 (2002)

A trial court abuses its discretion when it calls its own witness on a key issue after both parties have rested, thereby potentially undermining the defendant’s case and depriving them of a fair trial.

Summary

Berrios was convicted of drug and weapon possession after a bench trial. He argued he was framed by narcotics officers. After both sides rested, the trial judge called a police sergeant as a court witness, over the defendant’s objection. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by calling a witness on a key issue after both parties had rested, effectively assuming the role of an advocate and potentially prejudicing the defendant’s case. The court emphasized that while judicial intervention is sometimes necessary, it must be exercised sparingly to avoid compromising the court’s impartiality.

Facts

On May 12, 1998, police executed a search warrant at an apartment. The Emergency Services Unit (ESU) broke down the reinforced door and handcuffed the three occupants, including Berrios. Narcotics officers then entered and found drugs and cash near Berrios, and a handgun on his person. At trial, Berrios claimed the officers planted the evidence. His defense hinged on the argument that ESU would have discovered these items when they initially searched and handcuffed him.

Procedural History

Berrios was convicted in Supreme Court of criminal possession of a controlled substance and a weapon. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, finding the trial court’s decision to call a witness was an abuse of discretion.

Issue(s)

Whether a trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, can call its own witness after both the prosecution and the defense have rested their cases.

Holding

No, because under the circumstances of this case, the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law by assuming the parties’ traditional role and introducing evidence that had the effect of corroborating the prosecution and discrediting the defendant.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that trial judges have wide discretion in directing the presentation of evidence. However, this discretion is not unlimited. While a court can take an active role to clarify issues, it must not assume the role of an advocate. The court emphasized, “the line is crossed when the judge takes on either the function or appearance of an advocate at trial.”

The court noted that it was problematic that “[t]he court simply called the witness after both sides had rested and had consciously and deliberately chosen not to call him.” By calling the sergeant, the court undermined the defendant’s case by (1) introducing evidence that corroborated the prosecution’s narrative and (2) preventing the defendant from arguing to the jury that they should draw a negative inference from the prosecution’s decision not to call the sergeant.

The court explicitly stated, “[l]oss of that inference, coupled with the generally damaging testimony of Sergeant Miller, create a significant probability that the verdict would have been affected had the error not occurred.” Because of this, the court could not deem the error harmless.

The Court made clear that while it wasn’t holding that a court may *never* call its own witness, in the unusual circumstance where it feels compelled to do so, it should explain its reasoning and invite comment from the parties. Absent this, the decision is likely an abuse of discretion.