PEOPLE v. JONES (2003)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered June 26, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

 During the direct examination of the arresting detective, the prosecutor elicited testimony that the detective arrested the nontestifying codefendant at 6:15 P.M., brought him back to the police station house, and interviewed him.   He and another police officer subsequently responded to a location.   When the prosecutor asked what happened there, the detective responded that he arrested the defendant.   Eight questions later, the prosecutor elicited from the detective that he arrested the defendant at 6:35 P.M. Such questioning was improper, as it was indicative of a deliberate attempt by the prosecutor to create in the jurors' minds the impression that the codefendant implicated the defendant (see People v. James, 289 A.D.2d 506, 507, 735 N.Y.S.2d 180;   People v. Cummings, 109 A.D.2d 748, 485 N.Y.S.2d 847;  People v. Tufano, 69 A.D.2d 826, 827, 415 N.Y.S.2d 42).

 In addition, the court erred in precluding cross-examination of the complainant regarding the length of time it took him to identify the defendant at a lineup.   Where, as here, the reliability of the identification by the complainant, the sole eyewitness, was crucial at trial, such restriction on cross-examination was improper (see People v. Williamson, 79 N.Y.2d 799, 800-801, 580 N.Y.S.2d 170, 588 N.E.2d 68;  People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 247, 597 N.Y.S.2d 975).

Under the circumstances of this case, the errors were not harmless.