People v. Adams, 21 N.Y.2d 394 (1968)

A defendant is denied a fair trial when the prosecutor urges the jury to consider a co-defendant’s statement as evidence against the defendant, even if the judge instructs the jury otherwise.

Summary

Adams was convicted of second-degree murder and first-degree assault. During a joint trial with a co-defendant, Love, Love’s unredacted pre-trial statement, containing both inculpatory and exculpatory remarks, was admitted into evidence. The trial judge instructed the jury to only consider the statement against Love. However, during summation, the prosecutor urged the jury to accept Love’s statement as evidence against Adams. The New York Court of Appeals reversed Adams’ conviction, holding that the prosecutor’s remarks denied Adams a fair trial because it was unreasonable to assume the jury could disregard the statement when explicitly urged to consider it by the prosecutor.

Facts

On December 4, 1965, Adams and Love, along with others, were driving around Rochester, NY, after drinking alcohol. They encountered another car with Cleveland Chatman (the deceased) and others. After a driving incident and verbal exchange, both cars stopped. Adams, Love, and others exited their car, with Adams concealing a rifle. A fight broke out between Nathan (from Adams’ car) and Cleveland Chatman. Adams fired a shot, missed, and Chatman retrieved a billy club from his car. Adams then pointed the gun at Chatman, made a statement, and shot him, resulting in Chatman’s death.

Procedural History

Adams and Love were indicted. Adams was charged with second-degree murder and first-degree assault. Love was indicted for second-degree murder for allegedly providing Adams with the bullet. After a Huntley hearing, the defendants were tried jointly. The jury acquitted Love and convicted Adams on both counts. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Adams appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the admission of a co-defendant’s unredacted pre-trial statement, coupled with the prosecutor’s urging the jury to consider the statement against the defendant, denied the defendant a fair trial.
2. Whether the trial court’s charge to the jury on justifiable homicide, lawful force, and intoxication was so inadequate as to constitute reversible error.

Holding

1. Yes, because the prosecutor’s remarks vitiated the protection the judge’s instructions afforded the defendant, making it unreasonable to assume the jury could follow the instructions.
2. No, because no exception or objection was taken to the charge, and no request was made to charge differently; thus, any question relating to error in the charge is not available on appeal.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the prosecutor’s actions in urging the jury to consider Love’s statement against Adams, despite the judge’s instructions, was fundamentally unfair. The court emphasized that a prosecutor is a quasi-judicial official with a duty to ensure a fair trial. Quoting People v. Lombard, the court stated that a prosecutor’s zeal in advocating their cause does not give them “any warrant to introduce into summation matter which the jury has no right to consider in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant.” Even though there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, the court refused to establish a precedent that the fundamentals of a fair trial can be disregarded if there is persuasive proof of the defendant’s guilt. The court cited numerous prior cases where convictions were reversed due to similar errors. Because no objection was made to the jury charge, these issues were not preserved for appeal.