People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Phillips

190 A.D.2d 1065, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1300

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 1065 (People v. Phillips) 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. Phillips, 190 A.D.2d 1065, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by permitting a police officer and the infant complainant’s mother to give hearsay testimony about the details of the alleged crimes as related to them by the infant (see, People v Rice, 75 NY2d 929, 931-932). The People concede that the court erred in admitting that testimony but argue that the error was harmless because it was cumulative of the infant’s testimony and practically consistent with the defense case.

The evidence of guilt was not overwhelming and, therefore, "there is no occasion for consideration of any doctrine of harmless error” (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241).

We reject defendant’s contention that the indictment should [1066]*1066have been dismissed because the Grand Jury proceeding was defective due to the presence of an unauthorized person in the Grand Jury room during the examination of the infant complainant (see, CPL 190.25 [3] [h]; People v Verkey, 185 AD2d 622). Finally, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J. — Endangering Welfare Child.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by permitting a police officer and the infant complainant’s mother to give hearsay testimony about the details of the alleged crimes as related to them by the infant (see, People v Rice, 75 NY2d 929, 931-932). The People concede that the court erred in admitting that testimony but argue that the error was harmless because it was cumulative of the infant’s testimony and practically consistent with the defense case.

The evidence of guilt was not overwhelming and, therefore, "there is no occasion for consideration of any doctrine of harmless error” (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241).

We reject defendant’s contention that the indictment should [1066]*1066have been dismissed because the Grand Jury proceeding was defective due to the presence of an unauthorized person in the Grand Jury room during the examination of the infant complainant (see, CPL 190.25 [3] [h]; People v Verkey, 185 AD2d 622). Finally, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J. — Endangering Welfare Child.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 1065, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-phillips-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack