People v. DiFabio

New York Court of Appeals

People v. DiFabio

588 N.E.2d 80, 79 N.Y.2d 836, 580 N.Y.S.2d 182, 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 2

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 9, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 588 N.E.2d 80 (People v. DiFabio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. DiFabio, 588 N.E.2d 80, 79 N.Y.2d 836, 580 N.Y.S.2d 182, 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 2 (N.Y. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*838 The trial court’s child witness competency determination during the Grand Jury proceedings was proper, inasmuch as that participation was not precluded by the Criminal Procedure Law (see, CPL 190.30 [6]; 190.25 [6]). Moreover, our interpretation of CPL 190.30 (6) in People v Groff (71 NY2d 101, 104 [”(a)t the Grand Jury stage of a criminal proceeding, determinations of witness competency must be made by the District Attorney”]) does not require a different result, because that interpretation defined the scope of the prosecutor’s responsibilities. It did not curtail the trial court’s power to participate in Grand Jury proceedings.

Finally, any error that may have resulted when the courts below permitted the victim’s mother to recount statements made by the victim while asleep was clearly harmless, given the other overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*838 The trial court’s child witness competency determination during the Grand Jury proceedings was proper, inasmuch as that participation was not precluded by the Criminal Procedure Law (see, CPL 190.30 [6]; 190.25 [6]). Moreover, our interpretation of CPL 190.30 (6) in People v Groff (71 NY2d 101, 104 [”(a)t the Grand Jury stage of a criminal proceeding, determinations of witness competency must be made by the District Attorney”]) does not require a different result, because that interpretation defined the scope of the prosecutor’s responsibilities. It did not curtail the trial court’s power to participate in Grand Jury proceedings.

Finally, any error that may have resulted when the courts below permitted the victim’s mother to recount statements made by the victim while asleep was clearly harmless, given the other overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

588 N.E.2d 80, 79 N.Y.2d 836, 580 N.Y.S.2d 182, 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-difabio-ny-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack