People v. Simmelkjaer, 61 N.Y.2d 139 (1984)

A defense attorney has no ethical obligation to disclose the existence of an alibi witness to the prosecution prior to trial, and a trial judge’s implication that such a duty exists can prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that a defense attorney does not act unethically by not revealing the existence of an alibi witness to the prosecution at arraignment. The court found that the trial judge’s questioning of the defendant’s prior attorney, implying that withholding the alibi witness’s existence was unethical, prejudiced the defendant and denied him a fair trial. The court emphasized that a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, and the judge’s actions cast doubt on the credibility of the defense. Therefore, the court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial.

Facts

Derrick Brooks, a 15-year-old grocery store employee, was robbed in Jamaica, New York. Brooks identified the defendant, Simmelkjaer, as the robber a week later at a Department of Social Services office. The defendant was arrested and arraigned. At arraignment, the defendant was represented by Legal Aid attorney Howard Raab, and the defendant’s common-law wife was present. More than 20 days after arraignment, the prosecution served a demand for a notice of alibi. The defense served a notice of alibi just before the People’s case at trial, asserting the demand was untimely.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of robbery. The defense appealed, arguing that the trial judge’s questioning of the defendant’s prior attorney prejudiced the jury. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge’s conduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

Issue(s)

Whether a trial judge’s questioning of a defense attorney about the failure to disclose an alibi witness, implying unethical conduct, constitutes reversible error.

Holding

Yes, because the trial judge’s questioning and comments concerning the defense attorney’s failure to disclose the alibi witness prejudiced the jury and denied the defendant a fair trial.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that there is no legal or ethical obligation for a defense attorney to volunteer the existence of an alibi witness to the prosecution, citing People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311. The court emphasized that a defense attorney might reasonably believe that efforts to exonerate the suspect would be futile or might be explicitly instructed by the defendant not to volunteer such information. The court stated: “What the Trial Judge overlooked in denying the latter requests was the clear implication of his examination of Raab that Raab’s rehabilitating testimony was incredible, because an ethical attorney would immediately have revealed to the prosecutor the existence of an alibi witness. That there is no such rule of law is established by People v Dawson (50 NY2d 311) and People v Conyers (52 NY2d 454).” The court found that the trial judge’s questioning of Raab, in front of the jury, implied that Raab’s testimony was not credible because an ethical attorney would have disclosed the alibi witness. This, combined with the judge’s instruction to the jury to disregard the defense attorney’s arguments about the alibi notice, prejudiced the defendant. “Though defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial, he is entitled to a fair trial, and a trial in which the Trial Judge interjects through questions and comments serious doubt concerning the veracity of a witness does not constitute a fair trial.” The court also noted weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, including Brooks’s prior inconsistent statement and questions about Pridgen’s identification, suggesting that the error was not harmless.