Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

HEMPHILL v. NEW YORK 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK 

No. 20–637.  Argued October 5, 2021—Decided January 20, 2022 

In April 2006, a stray 9-millimeter bullet killed a 2-year-old child after a
street fight in the Bronx.  Eyewitnesses described the shooter as wear-
ing a blue shirt or sweater.  Police officers determined Ronnell Gilliam 
was involved and that Nicholas Morris had been at the scene.  A search 
of Morris’ apartment revealed a 9-millimeter cartridge and three .357-
caliber bullets.  Gilliam initially identified Morris as the shooter, but 
he subsequently said that Darrell Hemphill, Gilliam’s cousin, was the 
shooter.  Not crediting Gilliam’s recantation, the State charged Morris 
with the child’s murder and possession of a 9-millimeter handgun.  In 
a subsequent plea deal, the State agreed to dismiss the murder charges 
against Morris if he pleaded guilty to a new charge of possession of a
.357 revolver, a weapon that had not killed the victim.  Years later, the 
State  indicted  Hemphill  for  the  child’s  murder  after  learning  that
Hemphill’s DNA matched a blue sweater found in Morris’ apartment
shortly  after  the  murder.    At  his  trial,  Hemphill  elicited  undisputed
testimony from a prosecution witness that police had recovered 9-mil-
limeter ammunition from Morris’ apartment, thus pointing to Morris 
as the culprit.  Morris was not available to testify at Hemphill’s trial 
because he was outside the United States.  Relying on People v. Reid, 
19 N. Y. 3d 382, 388, 971 N. E. 2d 353, 357, and over the objection of
Hemphill’s counsel, the trial court allowed the State to introduce parts
of the transcript of Morris’ plea allocution to the .357 gun possession
charge as evidence to rebut Hemphill’s theory that Morris committed
the  murder.  The  court  reasoned  that  although  Morris’  out-of-court 
statements  had  not  been  subjected  to  cross-examination,  Hemphill’s 
arguments and evidence had “opened the door” and admission of the 
statements  was  reasonably  necessary  to  correct  the  misleading  im-
pression  Hemphill  had  created.  The  State,  in  its  closing  argument, 
cited Morris’ plea allocution and emphasized that possession of a .357