A long-held belief of the New York courts is that witnesses “whose lives indicate an abandonment or lack of moral principles, and show them to be lewd and debased characters, void of shame or decency, have not usually a great respect for the truth, or the sanctity of an oath.”1 Consistent with this belief, New York’s venerable “bad acts” impeachment rule emerged. As stated by the Court of Appeals in People v. Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 461 (1994), a witness in a civil or criminal trial may be cross-examined on prior conduct engaged in which can be characterized as “immoral, vicious or criminal conduct bearing on credibility” or which demonstrates an “untruthful bent or ‘significantly reveal[s] a willingness or disposition on the part of the [witness] voluntarily to place the achievement of [the witness'] individual self-interest ahead of principle or of the interests of society.’”
In People v. Smith, 27 NY3d 652 (2016), a consolidated appeal of three separate cases, the Court of Appeals in a thoughtful and carefully written opinion authored by Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam on behalf of a unanimous Court provided clear guidance to the bench and bar as to how this “bad acts” impeachment rule is to be applied by the trial court. This column will discuss Smith.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
