You are here: / / ALLOWING THE INTRODUCTION OF A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS...
,

ALLOWING THE INTRODUCTION OF A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined it was (harmless) error to allow the People to introduce a witness’s grand jury testimony as a prior consistent statement to counter the implication of recent fabrication raised on cross-examination:

“A witness'[s] trial testimony ordinarily may not be bolstered with pretrial statements” … . Prior consistent statements, however, may be used to rebut a claim of recent fabrication to the extent that such a statement predated the motive to falsify … . …

… [W]e conclude that Supreme Court erred in allowing the People to utilize her grand jury testimony. That said, given that the admission of bolstering testimony constitutes nonconstitutional error … , we find that the error is harmless and there is not a significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant but for this error … . The inconsistency speaks to which direction the shooter dispersed during what was described as a chaotic scene, not to the key issue of identification. As recited above, four witnesses identified defendant as the shooter. As such, we find that the error here is of no moment. People v Johnson, 2019 NY Slip Op 07646, Third Dept 10-24-19

 

You might also like
LEAVING A 16 MONTH OLD CHILD UNATTENDED IN A BATHTUB WITH FOUR INCHES OF WATER CONSTITUTED NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant’s Being in the “General Area” Where Was Weapon Was Found and Defendant’s DNA on the Weapon Was Not Enough to Support Possession Conviction
Defendant Failed to Prove Three Elements of Adverse Possession
DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT SUPPORTING A “FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT” DEFENSE TO THE ACTION BASED UPON AN EXECUTED PROMISSORY NOTE (THIRD DEPT).
Plaintiff Sufficiently Demonstrated the Possibility of Long-Arm Jurisdiction to Warrant Discovery
Custody Properly Awarded to Non-Parents—Criteria Explained
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR TWO WITNESSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO COMPEL THE WITNESS WHO ASSERTED HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT... A REGULATORY AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD IN CONNECTION...