People v. Makley

202 A.D.2d 990, 609 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3358

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to permit him to rehabilitate his witness with evidence of a prior consistent statement made before trial. Defendant alleges that the District Attorney attacked the witness’ testimony as a recent fabrication. Because the prior consistent statement did not antedate the motive to fabricate, County Court properly concluded that it was inadmissible (see, People v McClean, 69 NY2d 426, 428-430; People v Davis, 44 NY2d 269, 277-278; People v Williams, 139 AD2d 683, 683-684).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and [991]*991find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

People v. Makley, 202 A.D.2d 990, 609 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

202 A.D.2d 990 (People v. Makley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. McClean
508 N.E.2d 140 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
People v. Williams
139 A.D.2d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)