Opinion ID: 526745
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Examination of Thomas at Trial

Text: 6 At trial, Jones's attorney started his cross-examination of Thomas with questions focusing principally on prior criminal acts by Thomas. The attorney then began asking Thomas about his relationship with Jones and his family, and the following occurred: 7 Q: Now, how long have you lived in the neighborhood you are residing in at the present time? 8 A: Since 1975. 9 Q: And when did you first see the defendant, what year, that you can recall? 10 A: I don't remember what year. I seen him for several years. 11 Q: Well, would you say ten years ago? 12 A: I don't think so. 13 Q: Do you know any other members of his family? 14 A: I know his father. 15 Q: You know what his father does? 16 MR. HALEY [the prosecutor]: I object, your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Sustained. 18 Q: Are you a member of his father's church? 19 MR. HALEY: Oh-- 20 THE COURT: Sustained. Strike it and the jury will disregard. 21 Let's talk about this case, Counsel, and no extraneous matters. 22 MR. HORAN [Jones's attorney]: Your Honor, I-- 23 THE COURT: No, I don't want to hear another word. 24 MR. Horan: ALL RIGHT. 25 Jones's attorney then cross-examined Thomas at some length about the events surrounding the robbery. He did not return to the matter of a relationship between Thomas and Jones's father. 26 On redirect examination, a question by the prosecutor as to any bias on the part of Thomas led to the following colloquy: 27 Q: Finally, Mr. Thomas, on January 2nd or prior to January 2nd, 1982, what, if any, animosity or dislike did you have for Kevin Jones? 28 MR. HORAN: Objection. Irrelevant. 29 THE COURT: Counsel,-- 30 MR. HALEY: What, if any, was not a leading question. 31 THE COURT: Nothing to do with that, but I don't believe there was any such question or nothing like that on cross examination concerning that point. 32 MR. HALEY: Right. 33 THE COURT: The objection is sustained. 34 Jones's attorney did not pursue the issue of bias on recross-examination. 35 The jury convicted Jones on both counts. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of seven and one half to 15 years on the robbery count and to a concurrent term of one year's imprisonment on the resisting arrest count. 36 On appeal to the Appellate Division, Jones argued, inter alia, that the trial court's curtailment of his cross-examination of Thomas denied him his constitutional rights to confrontation and a fair trial. He stated that [i]t was the Defense's contention that there was 'bad blood' between Edward Thomas and the Defendant's father; however the trial court does not allow the Defendant to Cross-Examine as to this hostility that Mr. Thomas may have felt toward Defendant and Defendant's father.... [T]he trial court does not even give the Defense Counsel a chance for an Offer Of Proof.... The Appellate Division affirmed, stating, in pertinent part, as follows: 37 The defendant ... asserts reversible error in the trial court's refusal to allow him to question Thomas regarding Thomas' alleged hostility toward the defendant's father. However, in light of the sustained attack on Thomas' credibility, it cannot be said that there was a reasonable possibility that the exclusion of this evidence affected the outcome of the trial (see, People v. Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, [476 N.Y.S.2d 825, 465 N.E.2d 364], cert. denied 469 US 932 [105 S.Ct. 327, 83 L.Ed.2d 264]; People v. Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787]. Finally, the record discloses that the defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 38 People v. Jones, 125 A.D.2d 414, 414-15, 509 N.Y.S.2d 133, 133-34 (2d Dept.1986). The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. People v. Jones, 70 N.Y.2d 649, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1042, 512 N.E.2d 568 (1987). 39