Case Detail
CitationPeople v. Coppolo, 817 N.Y.S.2d 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
CrimeViolent, other
Pros. First NameRobert
Pros. Last NameJohnson
Trial Year2000
BodyAppeals court
OpinionThe New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the prosecutor's improper conduct in introducing excluded evidence of the defendant's drug dealing on rebuttal, coupled with the prosecution witness's inadvertent reference to other excluded evidence, warranted a new trial. "Even assuming that the arresting officer's quickness to volunteer that defendant had been arrested while meeting with his parole officer reflected no misconduct by the prosecutor, her subsequent conduct was inexcusable. As the court correctly stressed, the prosecutor had no right to assume that the defense had opened the door to the testimony the prosecutor elicited on rebuttal to the effect that defendant had supplied the defense witness with crack. Given the prejudice to defendant from this improper conduct, and the prejudicial impact of the testimony concerning defendant's parole officer, we are not willing to consider whether, or the extent to which, the court's limiting instructions dissipated the prejudice. Even if we agree with the prosecution that there was overwhelming evidence of guilt, which we do not, the potential for prejudice was substantial and the interests of justice warrant a new trial."
Determination Year2006
Misconduct TypeTR: Inadmissible
C/S EffectReversal of conviction
Pros. Misc. ReportedUKN
Sanction TypeUKN
Web link