(Download) "People State New York v. Hans W. Early" by Supreme Court of New York " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: People State New York v. Hans W. Early
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 02, 1991
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after trial of, inter alia, robbery in the second degree and sentencing him as a persistent felony offender to a prison term of 25 years to life. We reject the contentions that the District Attorney should have been disqualified from prosecuting the case and that County Court erred as a matter of law and discretion in sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender and, accordingly, affirm. At a hearing conducted on defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment because of claimed prosecutorial misconduct, it was established that Peter Margolius, appointed as an Assistant District Attorney during the pendency of this criminal proceeding, had previously represented defendant. However, it is undisputed that the prior representation was in connection with an unrelated criminal charge and was completed prior to defendant's commission of the crimes forming the basis for this prosecution, thus creating no conflict of interest (see, People v Blim, 98 A.D.2d 944, 945, revd on other grounds 63 N.Y.2d 718; People v Joy, 78 A.D.2d 951, 952; cf., People v Shinkle, 51 N.Y.2d 417). Furthermore, while Margolius had personal contact with defendant during the pendency of this proceeding, it was established that Margolius had no involvement in the prosecution of this action and did not discuss the case with defendant or with any representative of the District Attorney's office, thereby preventing any actual prejudice or substantial risk of an abuse of confidence (see, Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46, 55; Matter of Morgenthau v Crane, 113 A.D.2d 20, 21-22). We reject the contention that the mere appearance of impropriety mandated the appointment of a special prosecutor. To the contrary, the Court of Appeals has made it clear that ""the courts, as a general rule, should remove a public prosecutor only to protect a defendant from actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence"" (Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, supra; see, Matter of Morgenthau v Crane, supra, at 22-23; People v Blim, supra; People v Joy, supra).