People v. Pugh, 58 N.Y.2d 962 (1983)

A trial court errs when it fails to instruct the jury that a defendant’s alibi witnesses had no duty to volunteer exculpatory information to law enforcement, especially when the implication is that the witness’s testimony was recently fabricated.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order and mandated a new trial because the trial judge improperly refused to advise the jury that the defendant’s alibi witnesses had no duty to offer exculpatory information to law enforcement. This refusal, coupled with the prevention of defense counsel from establishing that he had advised the witness accordingly, infringed on the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Since the case hinged on the credibility of conflicting testimonies regarding the defendant’s whereabouts during the crime, these errors could not be deemed harmless.

Facts

The central factual issue was the defendant’s location at the time the crime was committed. The prosecution and defense presented diametrically opposed testimonies. The defense offered alibi witnesses to support the defendant’s claim of being elsewhere during the commission of the crime. The prosecution questioned these witnesses’ failure to come forward with their information earlier.

Procedural History

The case proceeded to trial, where the defendant was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision. Justice Fein dissented at the Appellate Division level, arguing the trial court erred.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court committed reversible error by (1) refusing to instruct the jury that the defendant’s alibi witnesses had no duty to volunteer exculpatory information to law enforcement authorities and (2) preventing defense counsel from establishing that he had advised the witness accordingly, after the prosecution implied recent fabrication.

Holding

Yes, because the trial court’s refusal to provide the requested instruction and preventing defense counsel from explaining his advice to the witness constituted prejudicial error, especially given the importance of witness credibility in the case.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the trial judge erred by not advising the jury that the defendant’s alibi witnesses were under no obligation to volunteer exculpatory information to law enforcement authorities, citing People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 322. The court emphasized that it was proper for the defense counsel to advise the witness of this right. Preventing counsel from establishing this fact to rebut the insinuation of recent fabrication further infringed upon the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The court stated that striking the line of questioning about the witnesses failure to come forward would have been best, referencing People v. Dawson, supra, p 322. Because the testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses directly contradicted each other regarding the defendant’s whereabouts during the crime, witness credibility was a decisive factor. The errors, therefore, were not harmless.