People v. Benevento
674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584, 91 N.Y.2d 708 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the New York Constitution, the constitutional requirement for effective assistance of counsel is met so long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation through a reasonable and legitimate strategy, even if that strategy is ultimately unsuccessful.
Facts:
- In the early morning of June 17, 1993, a man, the defendant, began following a woman, the complainant, on Bleecker Street in Manhattan.
- After a brief verbal exchange, the defendant ran up behind the complainant, knocked her to the ground, and began slapping and punching her in the face while fondling her breasts and pelvic area.
- As bystanders approached to help the complainant, the defendant stole $15 from her pocket and fled.
- A group of bystanders chased the defendant, who discarded the stolen money before surrendering to one of his pursuers.
- The defendant confessed to stealing the money on three separate occasions: once as he was escorted back to the scene, once to police upon arrest, and a third time to an Assistant District Attorney.
- In his confessions, the defendant explained he had been drinking heavily and, after saying something stupid to the complainant, he "went crazy on her."
- At the time of the incident, the defendant had $200 of his own money on his person.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted and charged with robbery in the second degree.
- Following a trial, a jury in the trial court convicted the defendant of the charge.
- The defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 years.
- The defendant appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division.
- A majority of the Appellate Division reversed the conviction, holding that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.
- The People (the prosecution) appealed the Appellate Division's reversal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defense counsel's strategy of conceding an assault while contesting the element of intent for a robbery charge, despite some tactical errors, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
No. A defense counsel's strategy of conceding an assault while contesting the intent element for a robbery charge does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because it represents a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances. The court's inquiry focuses on whether the defendant received 'meaningful representation,' not 'perfect representation.' Here, given the defendant's multiple confessions, counsel's strategy to negate the requisite intent for robbery was a viable defense tactic. This strategy was consistently pursued from opening statements to summation, supported by evidence of intoxication and a request for a relevant jury instruction. Tactical missteps, such as promising the defendant would testify and then not calling him to the stand, are viewed as losing tactics rather than true ineffectiveness, especially when a legitimate strategic explanation exists. The New York standard is concerned with the fairness of the process as a whole, and a reviewing court must not use hindsight to second-guess a reasonable defense strategy, even if it fails.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms New York's adherence to its distinct 'meaningful representation' standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, as established in People v. Baldi, rather than adopting the federal Strickland v. Washington test. The decision solidifies the principle that a court's review of counsel's performance is highly deferential and focuses on the existence of a legitimate defense strategy at the time of representation. This sets a high bar for defendants claiming ineffective assistance, requiring them to show more than just tactical errors or an unsuccessful outcome; they must demonstrate the absence of any coherent, strategic purpose behind their counsel's actions.
