People v. Harris
749 N.Y.S.2d 766, 98 N.Y.2d 452, 779 N.E.2d 705 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A death penalty statute that allows capital punishment to be imposed only on defendants who exercise their constitutional right to a jury trial, while allowing those who plead guilty to avoid the death penalty, is unconstitutional. Such a scheme impermissibly burdens the assertion of fundamental Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Facts:
- On December 7, 1996, Darrel Harris entered a social club in Brooklyn armed with a gun.
- Harris announced a robbery and demanded money from Eddie Brown, who complied and gave him over $200.
- Harris then shot Jerome Sims and Michael Harris in the head at point-blank range, killing them.
- Harris also shot Eddie Brown in the head, seriously wounding him.
- As another patron, Evelyn Davis, tried to flee, Harris stabbed her in the back.
- Davis escaped to another nearby club and identified 'Darrel' as the shooter before she collapsed and died from her injuries.
- Another patron, Newbry Mitchell, escaped unharmed by hiding on the second floor.
- Harris was apprehended by police approximately two weeks after the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Darrel Harris was indicted in Kings County on six counts of first-degree murder and other related offenses.
- The District Attorney filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty.
- At trial, Harris asserted the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED).
- A jury in the Supreme Court, Kings County (the trial court), found Harris guilty of six counts of first-degree murder.
- Following a separate sentencing hearing, the same jury returned a verdict sentencing Harris to death.
- Harris filed a direct appeal 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 New York's death penalty statute, which permits a sentence of death only after a jury trial and precludes it for defendants who plead guilty, unconstitutionally penalize a defendant's assertion of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Wesley, J.
Yes. New York's death penalty statute unconstitutionally penalizes the assertion of fundamental Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The court reaffirms its prior holding in Matter of Hynes v. Tomei, which found the statute's plea-bargaining provisions unconstitutional based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Jackson. The statutory scheme creates a system where only defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial face the risk of a death sentence, which needlessly encourages guilty pleas and deters the exercise of constitutional rights. Because the defendant was sentenced to death under this unconstitutional framework, his death sentence must be vacated. The court, however, upholds the defendant's conviction, finding no reversible error during the guilt phase of the trial.
Dissenting in part - Smith, J.
Yes. The dissent agrees with the majority that the defendant's death sentence must be vacated as unconstitutional under Matter of Hynes v. Tomei. However, the dissent argues that the defendant's underlying conviction should also be reversed and a new trial ordered. This is because capital cases demand a 'heightened standard of reliability' at all stages, not just sentencing. The trial court committed reversible error by 1) refusing to permit the rebuttal testimony of a defense expert witness, which was crucial to the defendant's extreme emotional disturbance defense, and 2) denying a for-cause challenge to a prospective juror who stated she would not consider child abuse as a mitigating factor, forcing the defense to exhaust its peremptory challenges. These errors, viewed under a heightened scrutiny standard, deprived the defendant of a fair trial on his guilt.
Analysis:
This decision effectively invalidated New York's 1995 death penalty statute as it was written, solidifying the court's prior holding in Hynes v. Tomei. By confirming that the statute's plea-bargaining provisions were unconstitutionally coercive, the court rendered the death penalty inoperable, as no defendant could be sentenced to death after a jury trial. This ruling was a critical step toward the eventual de facto abolition of capital punishment in New York, which was cemented by the court's subsequent decision in People v. LaValle (2004). The case established a powerful precedent that statutory schemes cannot penalize defendants for exercising their core constitutional rights to a trial.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Harris