Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that the trial court violated the defendants’ right to counsel by conducting an off-the-record, in camera inquiry with the prosecution’s principal witness concerning his physical and mental condition without defense counsel present. Because the witness’s health and possible substance use were closely tied to his credibility, the inquiry involved a nonministerial matter relevant to trial. The court reversed both convictions and ordered new trials.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court violated defendants' right to counsel by conducting an in camera, off-the-record proceeding with the People's principal witness concerning the witness's mental and physical ability to testify without defense counsel present.
- Whether the error was subject to harmless-error analysis or could be excused because defense counsel later cross-examined the witness about credibility and drug use.
Holdings
- The trial court violated defendants' constitutional right to counsel by conducting an in camera, off-the-record examination of the People's principal witness without defense counsel present because the inquiry concerned the witness's mental and physical health, credibility, and potentially significant impeachment material rather than a merely ministerial scheduling matter.
- The denial of the right to counsel at trial is constitutional error that is not subject to harmless-error analysis; the convictions therefore had to be reversed and new trials ordered.
Key quotations
“Because, under these facts, the witness's mental and physical health were inextricably tied to his credibility, a nonministerial issue for trial, we hold that the court violated defendants' right to counsel by denying defense counsel access to the proceeding.” (25 N.Y.3d at 105)
“As the in camera discussion concerned a witness’s health (both mental and physical) and credibility, issues the court knew defense counsel would address during cross-examination of the witness at trial, it was much more than a scheduling matter, and it violated defendants’ right to counsel for Supreme Court to deny defense counsel physical access to the proceeding and to refuse to create a record of the proceeding for use in cross-examination” (25 N.Y.3d at 113-114)
Factual background
Lee Carr and Walter Cates, Sr. were convicted of acting in concert with others to murder Matharr Cham, who was beaten and strangled. The People's principal witness, Gary Rose, leased the apartment where the murder occurred and testified that he saw defendants participate in the killing. Rose had a long history of crack cocaine and methadone use and twice failed to appear while scheduled to testify. The trial court questioned Rose privately and off the record about his physical condition, substance use, and ability to testify, despite defense counsel's request to be present and to have the proceeding transcribed.
Procedural history
Carr was convicted of second-degree murder and his conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department, in People v. Carr, 111 A.D.3d 472 (1st Dep't 2013). Cates was separately convicted of second-degree murder and his conviction was affirmed in People v. Cates, 92 A.D.3d 553 (1st Dep't 2012). The Court of Appeals granted leave in both cases, reversed the Appellate Division orders, and ordered new trials.
Remand instructions
Reverse the orders of the Appellate Division in both cases and remit for new trials.