United States v. Angell

2017 WL 1364893 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A stray 9-millimeter bullet killed a 2-year-old child. The State charged Nicholas Morris with the murder, but after the trial commenced, it offered him a plea deal for a lesser charge. The State specifically required Morris to admit to a new charge of possession of a .357-magnum revolver, not the 9-millimeter handgun originally charged in the indictment and used in the killing. Years later, the State prosecuted D for the same murder. At his trial, D blamed Morris, and he elicited undisputed testimony from a prosecution witness that police had recovered 9-millimeter ammunition from Morris’ nightstand. Morris was outside the United States and not available to testify. The trial court allowed the State to introduce parts of the transcript of Morris’ plea allocution as evidence to rebut D’s theory that Morris committed the murder. The court allowed it because under state law D’s arguments and evidence had “opened the door” to the introduction of these testimonial out-of-court statements, not subjected to cross-examination because they were “‘reasonably necessary’” to “‘correct’” the “‘misleading impression’” D had created. D’s counsel objected, arguing that the plea allocution was “clearly hearsay” and that D was being “deprived of an opportunity [for] cross-examination.” The State and D elicited undisputed testimony from a law enforcement officer that a 9-millimeter cartridge and .357-caliber bullets were recovered from Morris’ nightstand. In its final ruling, the court applied People v. Reid: “A significant aspect of the defense, in this case, is that Morris, who [was] originally prosecuted for this homicide, was, in fact, the actual shooter and that as such, D, was excluded as the shooter. There is, however, evidence contrary to the argument presented by D in this case . . . . In my judgment, D’s argument, which in all respects is appropriate and under the circumstances of this case probably a necessary argument to make, nonetheless, opens the door to evidence offered by the [S]tate refuting the claim that Morris was, in fact, the shooter.” The jury found D guilty, and the court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison. The Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals affirmed. D appealed.