People v. Valdez
53 A.D.3d 172, 861 N.Y.S.2d 288 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a witness's good character or extensive background may not generally be introduced to bolster their credibility unless and until their credibility has been attacked by the opposing party.
Facts:
- Lieutenant DeStefano, an off-duty police officer, observed an individual, later identified as the defendant, allegedly snatch a shoulder bag from another person from a distance of nearly two blocks away, in a potentially intermittently obscured view.
- Immediately after the alleged theft, the individual believed to be the thief (defendant) ran in DeStefano's direction, pursued by the individual believed to be the victim, while clutching the shoulder bag.
- As the two men closed the distance, the victim yelled for the larger man to stop.
- When the defendant was approximately 25 feet away from DeStefano, he threw the bag to the ground, which the victim immediately retrieved.
- DeStefano then pursued the defendant, first in his car and subsequently on foot, continuously observing him until his apprehension on 180th Street near Wadsworth Avenue.
- The defendant testified that he had been jogging in a nearby park and was running to a smoke shop to buy cigarettes when DeStefano accosted him for no reason and ordered his arrest for bag snatching.
Procedural Posture:
- An original jury in a New York County Supreme Court trial was unable to reach a verdict on the count of the indictment charging the defendant with grand larceny in the fourth degree.
- A retrial of the grand larceny count was commenced in the Supreme Court, New York County.
- During the retrial, the prosecutor, immediately after her key witness, Lieutenant DeStefano, was sworn, elicited extensive background information about his achievements and character.
- Defense counsel made general objections to this line of questioning, and later specifically objected on grounds of relevancy, which the trial court overruled while directing the prosecutor to move on.
- The jury at the retrial convicted the defendant of grand larceny in the fourth degree.
- The defendant appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
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 commit reversible error by introducing extensive background information about a key fact witness, including military service, academic achievements, and numerous commendations, at the very outset of a retrial and before the witness's credibility has been impeached?
Opinions:
Majority - Lippman, P.J.
No, while it is generally improper to introduce extensive background information about a key fact witness to bolster their credibility before it has been impeached, this error was not reversible in this case due to a lack of proper objection and the overwhelming nature of other, unchallenged evidence. The court stated that it is a basic principle of evidence law that a witness's credibility may not be 'propped or bolstered' unless first impeached, to avoid dedicating court time to credibility and distracting the jury from the merits. The prosecutor's elicitation of Lt. DeStefano's extensive achievements (military, academic, commendations, 'Cop of The Year' awards) was not mere background to provide context, but rather 'accreditation in advance of impeachment,' which encourages jurors to find the witness unimpeachable and highly credible. The defense theory was based on mistaken observation, not untruthfulness, and contradicting a witness does not, by itself, authorize character evidence. Although the 'background' testimony was distracting and potentially misleading, mimicking expert qualifications, the error was not preserved for review as a matter of law due to only general objections. Ultimately, the court declined to invoke its interest of justice jurisdiction, concluding that the potential for prejudice was not realized because the jury's decision to credit the officer's unimpeached account of the events immediately following the initial distant observation (the chase, the dropping of the bag at close range, the continuous pursuit) was not plausibly actuated by the objectionable testimony, as these observations were accurate and reliable.
Concurring - Andkias, J.
No, the defendant’s conviction should be affirmed, and the 'bolstering' claim is unpreserved. The concurring opinion argues that nothing untoward occurred, and the lieutenant’s testimony about his background and accomplishments was not irrelevant, distracting, misleading, or gratuitously injected. The prosecutor was simply 'accrediting her witness,' a common and proper trial technique. Jurors need introductory questions to understand who a witness is, why they are there, and why they should be believed, as credibility is always an issue. This practice allows counsel to create a favorable impression of the witness without violating character evidence rules. The extent of background development depends on the witness's importance. While relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by prejudice, the trial court has discretion, which was not abused here. The case was fundamentally about credibility, with diametrically opposing versions of events presented by the lieutenant and the defendant. The lieutenant's background testimony was brief and not improperly exploited, and the jury was given standard instructions to give his testimony no more credence than any other witness. Therefore, presenting the witness in the best light was appropriate, especially given the contrasting narratives.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the rules of evidence regarding witness bolstering, reinforcing the principle that a witness's credibility may not be prematurely supported before it has been challenged. It highlights the distinction between permissible background information for context and impermissible 'accreditation in advance of impeachment' that serves to bolster credibility. The majority's decision, while disapproving the prosecutor's conduct, underscores the importance of proper preservation of error through specific objections and demonstrates how strong corroborating evidence can render an otherwise serious evidentiary error harmless, particularly when the core observations are deemed reliable. The concurrence provides a counterpoint, advocating for broad discretion in witness introduction, revealing the tension between strict evidentiary rules and practical trial advocacy.
