People v. Rice
513 N.Y.S.2d 108, 69 N.Y.2d 781, 505 N.E.2d 618 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Prosecutorial misconduct, even if deliberate and reprehensible, does not require a per se reversal of a conviction. A conviction may be affirmed if the evidence of the defendant's guilt is overwhelming and the defense fails to identify specific prejudice resulting from the misconduct.
Facts:
- Defendant was involved in an incident where Jesse Horton and Lawrence Worley were stabbed.
- Horton died as a result of the stabbing wounds.
- Worley survived the initial attack.
- Sometime after the attack but before the defendant's trial, Worley died in an unrelated subway incident.
- The prosecuting attorney was aware that Worley was deceased.
- The prosecutor deliberately misled the defense counsel, causing them to believe that Worley was still alive and a potential witness for the upcoming trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was indicted on charges including second-degree murder, attempted murder, and robbery.
- At trial in the court of first instance, the robbery charges were dismissed.
- The jury acquitted the defendant of attempted murder but convicted him of the murder of Horton.
- Defendant appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division, which is an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
- Defendant then appealed to the 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 prosecutor's deliberate misrepresentation regarding the mortality of an eyewitness require a per se reversal of a conviction and a new trial, even in the absence of demonstrated prejudice and in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt?
Opinions:
Majority - Memorandum
No. A prosecutor's deliberate misrepresentation does not require a per se reversal of a conviction. The court acknowledged that the prosecutor's actions constituted a serious, reprehensible violation of professional duties that cannot be condoned. However, reversal is not warranted under these specific circumstances, which include the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and the failure of defense counsel to identify any prejudice that resulted from the misconduct. The court explicitly declined to adopt a per se rule that would mandate reversal for such conduct, instead favoring a case-by-case analysis.
Dissenting - Hancock, Jr., J.
Yes. The prosecutor's conduct warrants a reversal and a new trial. A prosecutor's role is not merely to win a case, but to ensure justice is done. By deliberately misrepresenting a key fact, the prosecutor induced the defense to devise a trial strategy based on a false premise—that the only other eyewitness was alive and available. The extent of the damage from this deception is unknowable, and the court should not speculate on what might have been. The misconduct deprived the defendant of the right to fully and properly prepare a defense, undermining the fairness of the trial and the integrity of the justice system itself.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent by rejecting a per se rule for reversing convictions due to prosecutorial misconduct. It effectively applies a harmless error analysis, weighing the severity of the misconduct against the strength of the evidence and the defendant's ability to demonstrate specific prejudice. This ruling places a heavy burden on defendants to prove not only that a prosecutor acted improperly but also that this misconduct directly and negatively impacted the outcome of their case. Consequently, it may allow convictions to stand even in cases of egregious ethical violations by the prosecution, provided the evidence of guilt is considered overwhelming.
