THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. GEORGE TAYLOR, APPELLANT.
80 N.Y.2d 1, 598 N.E.2d 693, 586 N.Y.S.2d 545 (1992).
July 1, 1992
1 No. 109
Decided July 1, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
E. Joshua Rosenkranz, for Appellant.
Nancy D. Killian, for Respondent.
HANCOCK, J.:
Defendant was tried before a jury on one indictment and convicted of
separate crimes involving two different victims: i.e., rape and sodomy
of Clara B. and attempted rape and sexual abuse of Elizabeth G. In
defendant's appeal of the Appellate Division's affirmance of his
convictions, we address two issues: (1) on the rape and sodomy counts,
whether the trial court erred in admitting -- under the hearsay
exception for a past recollection recorded -- a police officer's phone
message with a license plate number allegedly belonging to defendant's
car; and, (2) on the attempted rape count, whether the court erred in
denying defendant's request for a jury charge on the affirmative
defense of renunciation. For the reasons stated hereinafter, we hold:
(1) that admission of the phone message as a past recollection
recorded was improper and that that error, coupled with the erroneous
admission of an uncertified copy of defendant's car registration,
warrants a reversal and a new trial; and, (2) that the court's denial
of defendant's request for a renunciation charge was correct.
I
On February 24, 1987, a man forced his way into Clara B.'s apartment
in the Bronx and raped and sodomized her at gunpoint. On March 2,
1987, a man sexually abused and attempted to rape Elizabeth G. at
knifepoint in her apartment, also in the Bronx. Detective Thomas
Connelly arrested defendant on March 13, and each victim identified
him as her attacker at the police station in separate lineups. A Grand
Jury subsequently indicted defendant for these and other crimes.
At trial each complainant again identified defendant and the
prosecution adduced other evidence linking him to the scene of each
SNIPPETS:
Defendant was tried before a jury on one indictment and convicted of separate crimes
In defendant's appeal of the Appellate Division's affirmance of his convictions, we address
on.
For the reasons stated hereinafter, we hold: that admission of the phone message as a past
On February 24, 1987, a man forced his way into Clara B.'s apartment in the Bronx and raped
On March 2, 1987, a man sexually abused and attempted to rape Elizabeth G. at knifepoint in
Detective Thomas Connelly arrested defendant on March 13, and each victim identified him as
At trial each complainant again identified defendant and the prosecution adduced other
After defendant was found guilty but before sentencing he pleaded guilty to other rapes and
The Appellate Division affirmed defendant's convictions, holding that: the phone message with
of his purpose to rape Elizabeth G.".
It rejected defendant's argument that he had been improperly denied his right to have the
She testified, however, that to the best of her recollection, the license plate number she
Based on the combined testimony of Detective Valentin and Ms.
Lopez, the trial court, over objection, admitted the memorandum containing the license
Thus, he could not state that what he wrote down was what he had been told (see, Brown v
We reject the People's alternative argument that any error in admitting the phone message
New York's first recognition of renunciation as a statutory defense came in 1965 when the
1967) as part of its overall revision of the criminal statutes following the American Law
For the defense of renunciation to be effective, it must be shown that the object crime was
To be "voluntary", as that term is used in the statute, the abandonment must reflect a change
A closing comment is also merited with respect to the Court's extended discussion of the
|
