The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of defendant’s conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel, noting counsel’s failure to invoke the court’s prior preclusion order and the presentation of an alibi defense for the wrong day. Judge Pigott wrote a long and detailed dissent. People v Jarvis, 2015 NY Slip Op 02869, CtApp 4-7-15
The Second Department determined defendant’s girlfriend was properly cross-examined about her delay in coming forward with defendant’s alibi. The prosecutor laid the proper foundation for the cross-examination:
…[T]he People properly elicited testimony from his girlfriend during cross-examination regarding her delay in coming forward to the authorities with certain exculpatory information. Before a defense witness may be cross-examined regarding his or her failure to come forward with exculpatory information at an earlier date, certain foundational requirements must first be met … . Here, the prosecutor laid the necessary foundation prior to cross-examining the defendant’s girlfriend about her apparent delay in informing law enforcement authorities of the defendant’s alibi. The record indicates that, during a bench conference, it was ascertained that the defendant’s girlfriend had not refrained from speaking to authorities under the advice of defense counsel. Moreover, the court instructed the jury that the defendant’s girlfriend had no obligation to volunteer exculpatory information to law enforcement authorities. Under these circumstances, the People properly elicited evidence during the cross-examination of the defendant’s girlfriend that she delayed in contacting the authorities with exculpatory evidence … . People v Webster, 2015 NY Slip Op 01974, 2nd Dept 3-11-15
The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the prosecutor failed to show good cause for her failure to provide timely notice of rebuttal witnesses. Defendant had provided a “notice of alibi.” Defendant’s alibi witness was his girlfriend, who testified defendant was home with her at the time of the offense. The prosecutor did not provide reciprocal notice of rebuttal witnesses who would testify that cell phone records demonstrated defendant was not at home with his girlfriend at the time of the offense. In spite of the lack of timely notice, the trial court allowed the rebuttal testimony after an adjournment:
CPL 250.20(1) provides, among other things, that within eight days of service of a demand by the People, a defendant “must” serve upon the People a “notice of alibi,” and that “[f]or good cause shown, the court may extend the period for service of the notice.” The reciprocal provision, CPL 250.20(2), provides, among other things, that “[w]ithin a reasonable time after receipt of the defendant’s witness list but not later than ten days before trial,” the People “must” serve and file a list of the witnesses the People propose to offer in rebuttal to discredit the defendant’s alibi at the trial, and that “[f]or good cause shown, the court may extend the period for service” of the People’s witness list.
CPL 250.20(3) provides that if the defendant calls an alibi witness at trial without having first served the requisite notice pursuant to CPL 250.20(1), the court “may exclude any testimony of such witness,” or “may in its discretion receive such testimony, but before doing so, it must, upon application” of the People, “grant an adjournment not in excess of three days” (CPL 250.20[3]). CPL 250.20(4) provides that the provisions of subdivision (3) “shall reciprocally apply” when the People seek to offer alibi rebuttal witnesses without having given the requisite notice pursuant to CPL 250.20(2).
Here, the People contend, in effect, that, unlike CPL 250.20(2), which requires the People to show “good cause” for an extension of time to serve the list of alibi rebuttal witnesses, CPL 250.20(3) and (4) do not require such a showing for the court to exercise its discretion in receiving such testimony absent any compliance with the notice requirement. We disagree … . A construction of the statute which requires good cause to be shown before trial, but not during trial, when late notice would be most prejudicial, is both contrary to the plain meaning of the statute, as well as contrary to the intent of the Legislature in amending the statute to comply with the Due Process Clause … . To hold otherwise would mean that CPL 250.20(3) and (4) completely eviscerate the timeliness of notice requirements of CPL 250.20(1) and (2). People v Crevelle, 2015 NY Slip Op 01661, 2nd Dept 2-25-15
ess Required Reversal
The Second Department determined defendant had presented sufficient evidence of “actual innocence” to support his motion to vacate his conviction to warrant a hearing:
…[O]n remittal, the Supreme Court should hold a hearing to address the defendant’s claim that the judgment of conviction should be vacated because the defendant is “actually innocent” of the crimes of which he was convicted (see CPL 440.10[1][h]; People v Hamilton, _____ AD3d _____, 2014 NY Slip Op 00238 [2d Dept 2014]). As we recognized in Hamilton, a prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is ” “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration'”” by the court… . Here, the defendant made the requisite prima facie showing. Specifically, in support of his claim of actual innocence, he submitted affidavits from alibi witnesses who, although they had been identified before trial in a notice of alibi (see CPL 250.20[1]), had not testified at trial. People v Jones, 2014 NY Slip Op 02079, 2nd Dept 3-26-14
The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed defendant’s 1992 conviction. The conviction had already been upheld on appeal. But, in 2012, a writ of coram nobis was brought arguing defendant did not receive a fair trial because of the ineffectiveness of his counsel. The writ was granted and, on appeal, the court determined defendant was entitled to a new trial. Defense counsel was deemed ineffective (1) for failure to object to the elicitation of testimony about a threat which had been precluded by the trial judge, and (2) for using a flawed alibi defense (referring to the wrong days of the week) which gave the jury the impression the alibi witnesses were testifying falsely:
We conclude that “defendant has demonstrated the absence of any strategic or other legitimate explanation for his attorney’s” failure to object to the introduction of this prejudicial and previously precluded testimony … . Moreover, after defense counsel failed to object to the admission of that precluded testimony, the prosecutor continued to use that testimony to full advantage, arguing on summation that the threat to the prosecution witness “puts the [d]efendant [at the crime scene] just as easily as any person you saw in there” … . Defense counsel’s error in failing to object to the testimony of the prosecution witness “simply cannot be construed as a misguided though reasonably plausible strategy decision” …, and “ ‘is sufficiently serious to have deprived defendant of a fair trial’… . * * *
Presenting an alibi defense for the wrong date or time has been found, by itself, to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel … . We conclude that presenting an alibi defense for the wrong day of the week, as occurred here, similarly constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel inasmuch as offering patently erroneous alibi testimony cannot be construed as a plausible strategy… . People v Jarvis, 1009, 4th Dept 1-3-14
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy