People v. Tarver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tarver

161 A.D.2d 1162, 555 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9159

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

DecidedMay 11, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 1162 (People v. Tarver) 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. Tarver, 161 A.D.2d 1162, 555 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: The People concede that the judgment must be reversed because the trial court erred in providing the jury with a verdict sheet defining the elements of the crimes (see, People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830).

We also note that the court erred in permitting the emergency room physician to testify about statements made to her by the victim regarding the identity of the perpetrator and the manner in which the victim and perpetrator slept together the night before. Such statements were irrelevant to diagnosis and treatment and impermissibly bolstered the victim’s testimony (see, People v Harris, 132 AD2d 940, 941). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Reed, J.—rape, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Balio and Lowery, 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: The People concede that the judgment must be reversed because the trial court erred in providing the jury with a verdict sheet defining the elements of the crimes (see, People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830).

We also note that the court erred in permitting the emergency room physician to testify about statements made to her by the victim regarding the identity of the perpetrator and the manner in which the victim and perpetrator slept together the night before. Such statements were irrelevant to diagnosis and treatment and impermissibly bolstered the victim’s testimony (see, People v Harris, 132 AD2d 940, 941). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Reed, J.—rape, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 1162, 555 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tarver-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack