People v. Williams

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Williams

552 N.E.2d 165, 75 N.Y.2d 858, 552 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 296

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 552 N.E.2d 165 (People v. Williams) 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. Williams, 552 N.E.2d 165, 75 N.Y.2d 858, 552 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 296 (N.Y. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant did not challenge the admission of proof that the victim promptly complained of being raped. Nor did he object to the substance of the trial court’s instruction to the jury that a prompt complaint lends "some measure of reliability to the alleged victim’s story * * * [but] is not proof of the facts and circumstances * * * for [which] you must seek other proof.” Accordingly, we do not address the propriety of the prompt complaint evidence as admitted or of the charge as given in this case.

In the context of this case, defendant does not challenge the existing law. His only argument is that the trial court committed reversible error by giving its instruction over his objection that the instruction would unduly draw the jury’s attention to the prompt complaint evidence. But if, as defendant concedes, proof that the victim promptly complained of being raped is admissible, under existing law, to show the reliability of that complaint (see, Boecio v People, 41 NY 265; People v Deitsch, 237 NY 300; Richardson, Evidence § 292 [Prince 10th ed]), it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion by advising the jurors of the legal principles *860 which, defendant does not dispute, govern the use of that evidence in their deliberations (see, CPL 300.10 [2]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judge Alexander taking no part.

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.

Defendant did not challenge the admission of proof that the victim promptly complained of being raped. Nor did he object to the substance of the trial court’s instruction to the jury that a prompt complaint lends "some measure of reliability to the alleged victim’s story * * * [but] is not proof of the facts and circumstances * * * for [which] you must seek other proof.” Accordingly, we do not address the propriety of the prompt complaint evidence as admitted or of the charge as given in this case.

In the context of this case, defendant does not challenge the existing law. His only argument is that the trial court committed reversible error by giving its instruction over his objection that the instruction would unduly draw the jury’s attention to the prompt complaint evidence. But if, as defendant concedes, proof that the victim promptly complained of being raped is admissible, under existing law, to show the reliability of that complaint (see, Boecio v People, 41 NY 265; People v Deitsch, 237 NY 300; Richardson, Evidence § 292 [Prince 10th ed]), it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion by advising the jurors of the legal principles *860 which, defendant does not dispute, govern the use of that evidence in their deliberations (see, CPL 300.10 [2]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judge Alexander taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 N.E.2d 165, 75 N.Y.2d 858, 552 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-williams-ny-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack