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
WHERE A WITNESS STATES SHE DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION AS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT.
CONTRACTOR OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF OVER AND ABOVE THE OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM.
Order Not Appealable, Did Not Affect Substantial Right.
Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable Based Upon Right to Enter Premises to Make Repairs But May Be Liable as the Creator of the Dangerous Condition
THE LABOR LAW’S EXCLUSION OF FARM WORKERS FROM THE DEFINITION OF ‘EMPLOYEES’ ENTITLED TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY VIOLATES THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).
Limited Role of Courts in Determining Applications to Stay Arbitration (Re: a Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA]) Explained
Four-Inch Floor-Drop Caused by Insect-Damage Constituted a “Collapse” within Meaning of Policy
Court Indicates a Certification Claimant Is Not Working Can Be a “Willful Misrepresentation” Even If “Unintentional”

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...