People v. Tuck

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Tuck

551 N.E.2d 578, 75 N.Y.2d 778, 552 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 4400

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 19, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 551 N.E.2d 578 (People v. Tuck) 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. Tuck, 551 N.E.2d 578, 75 N.Y.2d 778, 552 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 4400 (N.Y. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Appellant’s contention is that his right to confrontation was violated by the trial court’s allowing an unsworn seven-year-old prosecution witness to sit at a table facing the jury, and turned away from appellant (see, Coy v Iowa, 487 US 1012). This was done because the witness’ testimony was not audible and the courtroom was not equipped with a sound amplification system.

Under the circumstances presented this was error. However, the conviction must still be affirmed. Examining the remaining evidence, the sworn testimony of the 13-year-old complainant, which alone was sufficient to support a conviction (CPL 60.20; Penal Law § 130.16), was corroborated by physical evidence as well as the complainant’s report of the incident to her family. Moreover, there was some evidence in the record to contradict appellant’s alibi. Thus, there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to appellant’s conviction (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237).

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

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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 affirmed.

Appellant’s contention is that his right to confrontation was violated by the trial court’s allowing an unsworn seven-year-old prosecution witness to sit at a table facing the jury, and turned away from appellant (see, Coy v Iowa, 487 US 1012). This was done because the witness’ testimony was not audible and the courtroom was not equipped with a sound amplification system.

Under the circumstances presented this was error. However, the conviction must still be affirmed. Examining the remaining evidence, the sworn testimony of the 13-year-old complainant, which alone was sufficient to support a conviction (CPL 60.20; Penal Law § 130.16), was corroborated by physical evidence as well as the complainant’s report of the incident to her family. Moreover, there was some evidence in the record to contradict appellant’s alibi. Thus, there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to appellant’s conviction (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237).

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

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 N.E.2d 578, 75 N.Y.2d 778, 552 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 4400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tuck-ny-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack