People v. Foote, 22 N.Y.2d 80 (1968)

A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to reopen a trial to admit recantation testimony, and this discretion will not be overturned absent a clear abuse.

Summary

Following summations, the defense in People v. Foote sought to reopen the trial to introduce recantation testimony from a prosecution witness. The trial court denied the request, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that the decision to reopen a trial for recantation testimony is discretionary, and there was no abuse of discretion here, given the witness’s apparent frustration with the prosecutor. The court also found no error in refusing to conduct a preliminary inquiry into whether the defendant’s correspondent was acting as a police agent, as there was no evidence supporting that claim.

Facts

The defendant, Foote, was on trial. After the summations were complete, Foote’s counsel requested that the trial be reopened. The purpose for reopening the trial was to introduce recantation testimony from one of the People’s witnesses. The witness was allegedly piqued because the prosecutor refused to discuss the cooperation agreement that the prosecutor’s office had originally promised her.

Procedural History

The defense requested the trial court to reopen the trial after summations. The trial court denied this request. The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the trial to permit the defendant to introduce recantation testimony from one of the People’s witnesses.
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to conduct an independent preliminary inquiry as to whether the defendant’s correspondent was acting as an agent of the police or prosecution.

Holding

1. No, because the decision to reopen a trial for recantation testimony is discretionary, and there was no abuse of discretion under the circumstances.
2. No, because there was no evidence before the court, other than defense counsel’s speculative hypothesis, to suggest that the defendant’s correspondent was acting as an agent of the police or prosecution.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that an application to reopen a trial to introduce recantation testimony is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge. The court found no abuse of discretion in this case, particularly noting the witness’s evident frustration with the prosecutor for refusing to further discuss the initial cooperation agreement. The court pointed out that the defense could pursue a post-conviction motion if necessary. Regarding the inquiry into the defendant’s correspondent’s potential agency, the court found no error in refusing the inquiry, as there was no evidence, only the defense counsel’s unsupported statement, suggesting the correspondent was acting as an agent of the police or prosecution. The court stated there was no evidence before the court other than the defense counsel’s “bold, naked statement”, a speculative hypothesis.