People v. Sanabria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sanabria

72 A.D.3d 552, 898 N.Y.S.2d 842

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

DecidedApril 22, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 552 (People v. Sanabria) 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. Sanabria, 72 A.D.3d 552, 898 N.Y.S.2d 842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered December 12, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 21 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The trial court erred in precluding the defense from investigating the complainant’s prior claims of molestation by her doctors. If proven to be false, these claims could have been used to challenge the mentally ill witness’s veracity as to her account of what happened here (see People v Hunter, 11 NY3d 1 [2008]). Under the facts of this case, this error cannot be deemed harmless. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered December 12, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 21 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The trial court erred in precluding the defense from investigating the complainant’s prior claims of molestation by her doctors. If proven to be false, these claims could have been used to challenge the mentally ill witness’s veracity as to her account of what happened here (see People v Hunter, 11 NY3d 1 [2008]). Under the facts of this case, this error cannot be deemed harmless. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 552, 898 N.Y.S.2d 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sanabria-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack