New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Wallace

  • People v. Wallace, 7 N.Y.3d 886 (2006): Jury Instruction on Lesser Included Offense

    7 N.Y.3d 886 (2006)

    A court is not required to submit a charge to the jury on a lesser included offense unless there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a conviction for the lesser offense but not the greater offense.

    Summary

    Wallace was convicted of robbery in the first and second degrees. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not submitting a charge to the jury on the lesser included offense of robbery in the third degree. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a conviction for robbery in the third degree. The victim’s testimony indicated the defendant had a gun, and no other evidence reasonably contradicted this testimony. The court emphasized that even though a witness claimed not to see a gun, he overheard a statement indicating the defendant possessed one. Thus, the court properly declined to charge the jury on the lesser included offense.

    Facts

    The victim was approached by Wallace and three companions as he left school. Two companions acted as lookouts while Wallace and another individual surrounded the victim. Wallace pressed his hip into the victim’s waist, revealing what appeared to be a gun. The victim testified he saw the barrel and handle of a black gun. Wallace and his accomplice then took the victim’s money and iPod.

    Procedural History

    Wallace was tried jointly with his accomplices. He requested the trial court to charge the jury on robbery in the third degree as a lesser included offense of robbery in the first degree. The trial court denied the request. Wallace was convicted of robbery in the first and second degrees. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court erred in declining to submit a charge to the jury on the lesser included offense of robbery in the third degree.

    Holding

    No, because there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a conviction of robbery in the third degree and not robbery in the first degree.

    Court’s Reasoning

    To establish entitlement to a charge on a lesser included offense, a defendant must show that the greater crime cannot be committed without also committing the lesser crime, and that a reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater offense. The court stated, “Although robbery in the third degree is a lesser included crime of robbery in the first degree, here there is no reasonable view of the evidence to support a jury finding that defendant committed robbery in the third degree and not robbery in the first degree.” The victim testified that the defendant had a gun. While a witness claimed not to have seen the gun, he overheard another accomplice tell the victim that the defendant had a gun. The court concluded that based on the evidence presented, no reasonable jury could find the defendant committed robbery in the third degree but not robbery in the first degree, and therefore, the trial court did not err in declining to submit the charge to the jury. The decision emphasizes the importance of the trial court’s assessment of the evidence in determining whether a lesser included offense instruction is warranted.

  • People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953 (1990): Duty to Preserve Rosario Material and Sanctions for Failure

    People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953 (1990)

    When the prosecution fails to exercise due care in preserving Rosario material and the defendant is prejudiced, the trial court must impose an appropriate sanction.

    Summary

    Wallace was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance. Undercover and arresting officers discarded notes containing the defendant’s description after the arrest. The Court of Appeals held that discarding these notes, which constituted Rosario material, prejudiced the defendant because they would have been helpful for cross-examining the officers on the identification issue. The court emphasized that while the specific sanction is discretionary, the failure to impose any sanction when the defendant is prejudiced is an abuse of discretion.

    Facts

    An undercover officer purchased drugs from the defendant and broadcasted a description over the police radio, which the arresting officer recorded. The undercover officer performed a post-arrest “drive-by” identification. The undercover officer made two subsequent drug purchases. Both officers discarded their written descriptions of the defendant after the arrest, but the undercover officer claimed to have incorporated the description into a “buy” report created later that evening.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case after the lower courts affirmed the conviction, focusing on the issue of whether the discarding of the notes prejudiced the defendant.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court erred in failing to impose any sanction for the officers’ discarding of notes containing a description of the defendant, when those notes constituted Rosario material and the defendant was prejudiced by their absence.

    Holding

    Yes, because the written descriptions would have been helpful to the defendant in cross-examining the officers on the critical issue of identification, and the People failed to exercise due care in preserving the Rosario material. The court must impose a sanction when prejudice occurs.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals found that the discarded notes constituted Rosario material, and the People did not dispute this point or contend that the officers exercised due care in preserving them. The court limited its review to whether the defendant was prejudiced. The court reasoned that the written descriptions would have been helpful to the defendant in cross-examining the officers, especially given the importance of the identification issue. The undercover officer’s claim that he incorporated the description into his “buy” report did not alleviate the prejudice because there was no way to verify if the description in the report matched the lost notes, especially since the report was prepared after a confirmatory “drive-by” identification. The court cited People v. Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940, stating that “the [trial] court must impose an appropriate sanction” where the People fail to exercise due care in preserving Rosario material, and the defendant is prejudiced. While the specific sanction is discretionary (People v. Kelly, 62 NY2d 516, 521), it was an abuse of discretion to decline to impose any sanction. The court reversed the order and ordered a new trial.