People v. Thompson

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Thompson

523 N.E.2d 819, 71 N.Y.2d 918, 528 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 543

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 523 N.E.2d 819 (People v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Thompson, 523 N.E.2d 819, 71 N.Y.2d 918, 528 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 543 (N.Y. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

At defendant’s trial on charges of burglary, sodomy and related offenses, defense counsel constructed a defense around the inconsistencies between complainant’s initial version to the police and her later Grand Jury and trial testimony. After the complaining witness completed her testimony, the arrest *920 ing officer testified that he had interviewed the complainant in her apartment, and at the hospital a few hours after the incident, and that nothing she stated during the later interview caused him to change or add to his original memo book entry. On redirect, however, the prosecutor — knowing of the existence of a memo book entry memorializing the hospital interview but without disclosing that fact to defense counsel— elicited from the officer that the complainant had given to the police a version of the incident at the hospital substantially similar as that given in her trial testimony. Pursuing this line of inquiry on recross, defense counsel learned for the first time of the memo book entry confirming that the version given at trial was not a recent fabrication, but indeed had been given to the police only a few hours after the initial statement. With the complaining witness’s credibility thus rehabilitated, defense counsel’s strategy was dealt a significant blow. The People’s delay in turning over the statement recorded in the hospital — revealed as it was only after defense counsel had moved forward on a strategy that depended on the statement’s nonexistence — substantially prejudiced the defendant (People v Perez, 65 NY2d 154, 159; see, People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56; People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, 289).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

At defendant’s trial on charges of burglary, sodomy and related offenses, defense counsel constructed a defense around the inconsistencies between complainant’s initial version to the police and her later Grand Jury and trial testimony. After the complaining witness completed her testimony, the arrest *920 ing officer testified that he had interviewed the complainant in her apartment, and at the hospital a few hours after the incident, and that nothing she stated during the later interview caused him to change or add to his original memo book entry. On redirect, however, the prosecutor — knowing of the existence of a memo book entry memorializing the hospital interview but without disclosing that fact to defense counsel— elicited from the officer that the complainant had given to the police a version of the incident at the hospital substantially similar as that given in her trial testimony. Pursuing this line of inquiry on recross, defense counsel learned for the first time of the memo book entry confirming that the version given at trial was not a recent fabrication, but indeed had been given to the police only a few hours after the initial statement. With the complaining witness’s credibility thus rehabilitated, defense counsel’s strategy was dealt a significant blow. The People’s delay in turning over the statement recorded in the hospital — revealed as it was only after defense counsel had moved forward on a strategy that depended on the statement’s nonexistence — substantially prejudiced the defendant (People v Perez, 65 NY2d 154, 159; see, People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56; People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, 289).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 N.E.2d 819, 71 N.Y.2d 918, 528 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thompson-ny-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack