Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Fred De Lucia and Salvator Montella, Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1965-03-18
Citations: 15 N.Y.2d 294
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Fred De Lucia and Salvator Montella, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 294–298

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Fred De Lucia and Salvator Montella, Appellants.
Argued February 9, 1965;
decided March 18, 1965.
William Sonenshine for appellants.
I. The trial court erred in denying appellants’ motion to set aside the verdict. The jurors’ unauthorized view of the premises prevented appellants from receiving a fair and lawful trial. (People v. Eastwood, 3 Parker Cr. Rep. 25, 14 N. Y. 562; People v. Tyrrell, 36 Hun 642; People v. Pauley, 281 App. Div. 223; People v. Kraus, 147 Misc. 906; People v. Johnson, 110 N. Y. 134; People v. Gallo, 149 N. Y. 106; People v. Leonti, 262 N. Y. 256; People v. Groom, 174 Misc. 250.) II. The trial court committed prejudicial error as to both appellants in allowing the arresting officer to testify as to prior knowledge of appellant De Lucia. (People v. Huff, 5 A D 2d 795.) III. The evidence as to appellant De Lucia was insufficient, as a matter of law, to warrant a conviction upon either count of the indictment. (Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 703; People v. Weiss, 290 N. Y. 160; People v. Woltering, 275 N. Y. 51; People v. Fitzgerald, 156 N. Y. 253; People v. Millet, 275 App. Div. 1060; People v. Birnbaum, 208 App. Div. 476; People v. Andreacchi, 221 App. Div. 136; People v. Di Maggio, 221 App. Div. 17.)
Frank D. O’Connor, District Attorney (Harvey B. Ehrlich of counsel), for respondent.
I. A motion for a new trial was properly denied. (McDonald v. Pless, 238 U. S. 264; Payne v. Burke, 236 App. Div. 527; People v. Sprague, 217 N. Y. 373; Clum v. Smith, 5 Hill 560; Dalrymple v. Williams, 63 N. Y. 361; Williams v. Montgomery, 60 N. Y. 648; Mitchell v. Carter, 14 Hun 448; Dean v. Mayor of City of N. Y., 29 App. Div. 350.) II. The visit to the scene, assuming it did occur, was not prejudicial to defendants. (People v. Kraus, 147 Misc. 906; People v. Klein, 213 App. Div. 66; People v. Bishop, 66 App. Div. 415; People v. Gallo, 149 N. Y. 106; People v. Fish, 125 N. Y. 136; People v. Johnson, 110 N. Y. 134; People v. Bush, 68 Cal. 623; People v. Thorn, 156 N. Y. 286.) III. No reversible error was committed with respect to the arresting officer’s testimony on identification. (People v. Huff, 5 A D 2d 795.) IV. The evidence was sufficient, as a matter of law, to warrant the conviction of De Lucia on both counts of the indictment. (Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 703.)

Opinion:
Dye, J.
In this joint appeal by permission, the appellants contend that the affirmance in the court below of the trial court's order denying their motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial amounted to reversible error. The motion was based on an affidavit by defendants' trial counsel in which he referred to statements allegedly made to him by certain of the jurors shortly after the verdict had been rendered to the effect that they had viewed the premises where the crime was allegedly committed for the purpose of more easily understanding the evidence. There is no allegation that the jurors involved met or spoke with anyone except each other. The premises in question, at 120-20 Queens Boulevard in the Borough of Queens, are across the street and about one block away from the courthouse where the trial was held. It has long been familiar law that jurors may not impeach their own duly rendered verdict by statements or testimony averring their own misconduct within or without the juryroom; much less can they do so by statements presented in the form of hearsay affidavits (People v. Sprague, 217 N. Y. 373; Dalrymple v. Williams, 63 N. Y. 361; Fisch, New York Evidence, § 305; Richardson, Evidence [8th ed.], § 423). The rule is founded on sound public policy (Payne v. Burke, 236 App. Div. 527) which the Federal courts have applied to preclude a juror from testifying as to his own misconduct (McDonald v. Pless, 238 U. S. 264). Even though an unauthorized view of such premises is improper it is not, without more, such an impropriety as to require the granting of a new trial (People v. Johnson, 110 N. Y. 134; People v. Klein, 213 App. Div. 66; see 58 ALR 2d 1147). Absent any competent proof that the defendants were prejudiced in a substantial right affecting the verdict, the motion was properly denied (Code Crim. Pro., § 465; cf. People v. Kraus, 147 Misc. 906).
Other assigned errors need not detain us. We are satisfied that the proof adduced was sufficient as matter of law to support the judgment of conviction of each defendant on both counts of the indictment. Nor do we find that any error was committed with respect to the arresting officer's testimony on identification from which it might be inferred that the defendant De Lucia had a prior criminal record.
The judgments of conviction should be affirmed.