People v. Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Young

113 A.D.3d 799, 978 N.Y.2d 863

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 A.D.3d 799 (People v. Young) 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. Young, 113 A.D.3d 799, 978 N.Y.2d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The People’s obligation to produce the pretrial statements of prosecution witnesses is limited to that material which is in the People’s possession or control (see People v Tissois, 72 NY2d 75 [1988]). The handwritten notes of a caseworker for the New York City Administration for Children’s Services were not in the possession or control of the prosecution and, thus, did not constitute Rosario material (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, 290 [1961]; People v Tissois, 72 NY2d 75 [1988]; People v White, 210 AD2d 447 [1994]).

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the testimony of the People’s expert regarding the possibility of a delayed outcry by a child sexual abuse victim impermissibly bolstered the testimony of the complaining witness (see People v Spicola, 16 NY3d 441 [2011]; People v Rodriguez, 91 AD3d 797, 797-798 [2012]; People v Carfora, 69 AD3d 751 [2010]). Such testimony explained behaviors of sexual abuse victims that jurors might not be expected to understand (see People v Spicola, 16 NY3d 441 [2011]; People v Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 528 [2012]).

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of a prior consistent statement is without merit. When a “witnesses] testimony is assailed — either directly or inferentially — as a recent fabrication, the witness may be rehabilitated” with a prior consistent statement (People v Mc[800]*800Daniel, 81 NY2d 10, 18 [1993]). Defense counsel’s questioning of the complaining witness during cross-examination implied that the testimony was a recent fabrication, thus opening the door for the prosecutor, on redirect examination, to rehabilitate the witness’s credibility (see id.; People v Sing Yuen Chen, 253 AD2d 898, 899 [1998]). Accordingly, the trial court correctly admitted the witness’s prior consistent statement into evidence. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

The People’s obligation to produce the pretrial statements of prosecution witnesses is limited to that material which is in the People’s possession or control (see People v Tissois, 72 NY2d 75 [1988]). The handwritten notes of a caseworker for the New York City Administration for Children’s Services were not in the possession or control of the prosecution and, thus, did not constitute Rosario material (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, 290 [1961]; People v Tissois, 72 NY2d 75 [1988]; People v White, 210 AD2d 447 [1994]).

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the testimony of the People’s expert regarding the possibility of a delayed outcry by a child sexual abuse victim impermissibly bolstered the testimony of the complaining witness (see People v Spicola, 16 NY3d 441 [2011]; People v Rodriguez, 91 AD3d 797, 797-798 [2012]; People v Carfora, 69 AD3d 751 [2010]). Such testimony explained behaviors of sexual abuse victims that jurors might not be expected to understand (see People v Spicola, 16 NY3d 441 [2011]; People v Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 528 [2012]).

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of a prior consistent statement is without merit. When a “witnesses] testimony is assailed — either directly or inferentially — as a recent fabrication, the witness may be rehabilitated” with a prior consistent statement (People v Mc[800]*800Daniel, 81 NY2d 10, 18 [1993]). Defense counsel’s questioning of the complaining witness during cross-examination implied that the testimony was a recent fabrication, thus opening the door for the prosecutor, on redirect examination, to rehabilitate the witness’s credibility (see id.; People v Sing Yuen Chen, 253 AD2d 898, 899 [1998]). Accordingly, the trial court correctly admitted the witness’s prior consistent statement into evidence. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 799, 978 N.Y.2d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-young-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack