People v. Donahue

195 A.D.2d 619, 599 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6875
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 1, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 195 A.D.2d 619 (People v. Donahue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Donahue, 195 A.D.2d 619, 599 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered November 6, 1991, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the first degree (three counts), robbery in the second degree, assault in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts).

On this appeal, defendant contends that County Court erred by permitting the People to impeach their own witness in accordance with the provisions of CPL 60.35. We disagree. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the testimony of the witness, rather than being neutral, clearly contradicted material aspects of the People’s case (see, People v Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d 44). Additionally, the People had no forewarning that the testimony of the witness would be contradictory of that given before the Grand Jury. Indeed, from all that appears in the record, trial counsel met with the witness six days before he was called to testify and was given no indication that the witness’s testimony would be other than as testified to at the Grand Jury.

Given the fact that the People were clearly surprised by the witness’s trial testimony, that it tended to disprove material elements of their case and that County Court gave explicit instructions to the jury regarding the portent of the witness’s prior Grand Jury testimony and the purpose for which it was offered, we find no error in County Court’s ruling. Accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

People v. McNeil
273 A.D.2d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Bass
255 A.D.2d 689 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 A.D.2d 619, 599 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-donahue-nyappdiv-1993.