PEOPLE, & C., APPELLANT, v. JODY ROBINSON, RESPONDENT.
89 N.Y.2d 648, 679 N.E.2d 1055, 657 N.Y.S.2d 575 (1997).
March 27, 1997
(Case Commentary by the Editorial Board)
4 No. 41 (1997 NY Int. 46)
Decided March 27, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Loretta S. Courtney, for Appellant.
James G. Eckert, for Respondent.
SMITH, J.:
The primary issue in this case is whether a defendant's constitutional
right to due process requires the admission of hearsay evidence
consisting of Grand Jury testimony when the declarant has become
unavailable to testify at trial. Under the circumstances of this case,
where the hearsay testimony is material, exculpatory and has
sufficient indicia of reliability, we hold that the trial court's
failure to admit such evidence was reversible error.
Defendant's conviction stems from an incident which occurred on
December 12, 1992 in an apartment in Rochester, New York. After an
evening of dancing and drinks, defendant, his then fiancee, and the
complainant went to the apartment where defendant and his fiancee
lived together. Some time that evening, defendant allegedly had sex
with the complainant without her consent while his fiancee was in the
apartment. At trial, defendant claimed that the sex was consensual and
occurred in his fiancee's presence. The complainant disputed this
account and testified that she continually screamed and fought against
defendant's efforts at intercourse. She also alleged that the
defendant's fiancee was absent from the room where the attack occurred
and failed to respond to her cries for help. The trial testimony of
the defendant and the complainant was consistent with their testimony
before the Monroe County Grand Jury.
Defendant's fiancee, in her testimony before the Grand Jury,
corroborated defendant's version of the evening's events. She
testified that all three were together in the same room, in varying
states of undress, while her fiancee attempted to have sex with the
complainant. She also testified that the complainant made no
SNIPPETS:
Loretta S. Courtney, for Appellant.
James G. Eckert, for Respondent.
The primary issue in this case is whether a defendant's constitutional right to due process
Under the circumstances of this case, where the hearsay testimony is material, exculpatory
Defendant's conviction stems from an incident which occurred on December 12, 1992 in an
After an evening of dancing and drinks, defendant, his then fiancee, and the complainant went
she left the jurisdiction before trial and refused to return to New York in defiance of an
defendant made a motion for the admission of his estranged wife's Grand Jury testimony on the
We have previously held that Grand Jury proceedings are not encompassed within the statute
we have held that certain considerations may support the admission of former testimony that
That determination rested upon "the public policy of reducing the incentive to tamper with
In fact, "ecause Grand Jury proceedings are conducted by the prosecutor alone, this function
We have noted that the absence of cross-examination "tends to impair" the reliability of
the issue of reliability is resolved when it is determined that the party against whom
the prosecutor questioned the witness about her relationship with the defendant which
Generally, the right to due process is guaranteed by the Federal and New York State
|
