Case Detail
CitationPeople v. Presha, 919 N.Y.S.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
CrimeSex crimes
StateNY
Pros. First NameUKN
Pros. Last NameUKN
FederalNo
Trial Year2007
BodyAppeals court
OpinionThe New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct in questioning defendant on cross-examination regarding fact that he impregnated three women within a short amount of time and his failure to pay child support and the prosecutor's remarks that victim was “so cute” and the “most conscientious, respectful kid she had ever seen” improperly appealed to sympathy of jury. "[W]e note that the prosecutor improperly questioned defendant on cross-examination regarding, e.g., the fact that he impregnated three women within a short amount of time and his failure to pay child support [citations omitted]. Defendants 'may be cross-examined with respect to prior conduct that affects their credibility' [citations omitted], but 'persistent questioning of a defendant on collateral matters which tends to impugn his [or her] character without being probative of the crime charged constitutes improper and prejudicial cross-examination' [citations omitted]. The prosecutor also improperly attempted to refresh the recollection of defendant during cross-examination when in fact she was attempting to place the contents of a certain document in evidence that otherwise was inadmissible [citations omitted]. Finally, the prosecutor remarked during summation that the victim was 'so cute' and the 'most conscientious, respectful kid [she had] ever seen.' Such remarks improperly appealed to the sympathy of the jury [citations omitted], and improperly vouched for the credibility of the victim [citations omitted]. We thus take this opportunity to admonish the prosecutor that her ‘mission is not so much to convict as it is to achieve a just result’ [citation omitted], and that she is 'charged with the responsibility of presenting competent evidence fairly and temperately, not to get a conviction at all costs' [citations omitted]."
Determination Year2011
Misconduct TypeTR: Inadmissible
TR: Inflammatory
TR: Vouching
C/S EffectReversal of conviction
Pros. Misc. ReportedUKN
SanctionsUKN
Sanction TypeUKN
Web linkhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=107999517181283107&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr