People v. Makley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Makley

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

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 990, 609 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-makley-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack