People State New York v. Sergio La Fontaine

In our opinion defendant was prejudiced and denied a fair trial by the following evidentiary rulings made by the trial court:
(a) the admission into evidence of a bankbook which was not covered by the search warrant and which bankbook was used by the
prosecutor in summation to establish that defendant had been dealing in narcotics; (b) the admission into evidence of testimony
regarding the sale of narcotics by two strangers outside the door of defendant's apartment, which testimony tended to prove
against defendant a crime not charged in the indictment (People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264); and (c) the admission into evidence,
solely on the question of credibility, of a small amount of heroin and cutting and packaging paraphernalia found in the basement
which had previously been suppressed, as not covered by the search warrant, during a hearing on a motion to suppress. The
effect of the admission of this evidence was demonstrated by the jury's questions regarding the control of and means of access
to defendant's storage area in the basement, even though the trial court had previously instructed the jury that the evidence
was admitted solely on the issue of a detective's credibility. Moreover, we are of the opinion that the prosecutor, in summation,
through several statements, made himself an unsworn witness and supported his case by his own veracity and position (People
v. Lovello, 1 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Jackson, 7 N.Y.2d 142). We have examined all of defendant's other points and have found
them to be without merit. Disposition Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered.