People v. Sharp

New York County Courts

People v. Sharp

77 Misc. 2d 855, 355 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1255

CourtNew York County Courts

DecidedMay 3, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 Misc. 2d 855 (People v. Sharp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York County Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Sharp, 77 Misc. 2d 855, 355 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1255 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Bernard Tomson, J.

The indictment charges the defendant with rape. He seeks to subpoena the school records of the victim who has not as yet been called to testify.

In the present posture of this case, the application must be denied. See Matter of Thibadeau (1 Ed. Dept. Rep. 607, 608), where Acting Commissioner Nyquist held “progress reports, subject grades, intelligence quotients, tests, achievement scores, medical records, psychological and psychiatric reports, selective guidance notes and the evaluations of students by educators ’ ’ to be privileged and that their disclosure may be made only to the parent or child; see, also, Matter of Wilson (11 Ed. Dept. Rep. 208); Matter of Van Allen v. McCleary (27 Misc 2d 81); Matter of Johnson v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y. (31 Misc 2d 810); CPLR 4504, 4507, 4508; cf. People v. Graydon (70 Misc 2d 336).

If at the trial a situation comparable to that presented in Davis v. Alaska (415 U. S. 308) is presented, the application for [856]*856a subpoena will be reviewed. In Davis, the United States Supreme iC'ourt, in weighing the State’s policy of protecting the confidentiality of a juvenile offender’s record against the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation, held that the State’s interest must yield and that the defendant would be permitted to use these records on cross-examination to show bias.

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

Bernard Tomson, J.

The indictment charges the defendant with rape. He seeks to subpoena the school records of the victim who has not as yet been called to testify.

In the present posture of this case, the application must be denied. See Matter of Thibadeau (1 Ed. Dept. Rep. 607, 608), where Acting Commissioner Nyquist held “progress reports, subject grades, intelligence quotients, tests, achievement scores, medical records, psychological and psychiatric reports, selective guidance notes and the evaluations of students by educators ’ ’ to be privileged and that their disclosure may be made only to the parent or child; see, also, Matter of Wilson (11 Ed. Dept. Rep. 208); Matter of Van Allen v. McCleary (27 Misc 2d 81); Matter of Johnson v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y. (31 Misc 2d 810); CPLR 4504, 4507, 4508; cf. People v. Graydon (70 Misc 2d 336).

If at the trial a situation comparable to that presented in Davis v. Alaska (415 U. S. 308) is presented, the application for [856]*856a subpoena will be reviewed. In Davis, the United States Supreme iC'ourt, in weighing the State’s policy of protecting the confidentiality of a juvenile offender’s record against the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation, held that the State’s interest must yield and that the defendant would be permitted to use these records on cross-examination to show bias.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 Misc. 2d 855, 355 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sharp-nycountyct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack