You are here: / / THE POLICE-OFFICER WITNESS, WHO DID TESTIFY AT TRIAL, DID NOT REMEMBER...
, ,

THE POLICE-OFFICER WITNESS, WHO DID TESTIFY AT TRIAL, DID NOT REMEMBER THE INCIDENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED AS PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED BECAUSE THE WITNESS TESTIFIED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined that the police-officer witness’s grand jury testimony was properly admitted under the “past recollection recorded” exception to the hearsay rule. The grand jury testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the officer, who could not remember the incident he described to the grand jury, did, in fact, testify at trial:

The foundational requirements for the admissibility of a past recollection recorded are: 1) the witness must have observed the matter recorded; 2) the recollection must have been fairly fresh at the time when it was recorded; 3) the witness must currently be able to testify that the record is a correct representation of his or her knowledge and recollection at the time it was made; and 4) the witness must lack sufficient present recollection of the information recorded … . “When such a memorandum is admitted, it is not independent evidence of the facts contained therein, but is supplementary to the testimony of the witness. * * *

… [T]he right to confrontation guarantees not only the right to cross-examine all witnesses, but also the ability to literally confront the witness who is providing testimony against the accused in a face-to-face encounter before the trier of fact … . The Confrontation Clause is satisfied when these requirements are fulfilled — even if the witness’s memory is faulty. The United States Supreme Court has directly addressed the situation where a witness was unable to explain the basis for a prior out-of-court identification due to memory loss … . In Owens, the Court held that “[t]he Confrontation Clause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish” … . To that end, “[i]t is sufficient that the defendant has the opportunity to bring out such matters as the witness’ bias, his lack of care and attentiveness, his poor eyesight, and even (what is often a prime objective of cross-examination), . . . the very fact that he has a bad memory” … . People v Tapia, 2019 NY Slip Op 02442, CtApp 4-2-19

 

You might also like
Appellate Division Should Have Allowed Respondent to Answer Petition After Dismissal of the Petition Was Reversed by the Appellate Division
Ex Parte Interview of Important Prosecution Witness Re: the Witness’ Health, Addictions and Ability to Testify Violated Defendants’ Right to Confrontation and Right to Counsel
“Continuity” Element of a Criminal Enterprise Explained—Substantive Arguments Re: the Erroneous Use of “And” Instead of “Or” In the Jury Instructions and the “Ineffective Assistance” Stemming from the Failure to Object to the Instructions–the Majority Held the Error Was Not Preserved and the Seriousness of the Error Was Not So Clear-Cut as to Implicate Ineffective Assistance–the Dissent Argued the Jury-Instruction Error Was Preserved and Was Reversible
BEFORE CONSENTING TO A BREATHALYZER BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST IN THIS DWI CASE, MORE THAN TWO HOURS AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT WAS INACCURATELY TOLD A TEST REFUSAL WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO THE TEST WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY, EVIDENCE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (CT APP).
Defense Counsel Should Have Been Allowed to Refresh Witness’s Recollection With a Prior Statement/Conviction Reversed
Plaintiff Failed to Raise a Question of Fact Concerning Whether the Driver of a Police Vehicle Exhibited “Reckless Disregard” for the Safety of Others In Responding to an Urgent Call—Defendant Police Officer Was Driving Against Traffic on a One-Way Street When the Collision Occurred
THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).
Employer Which Hired Undocumented Workers Who Were Injured On the Job Protected from Suit by the Workers’ Compensation Law

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PETITIONER, A CORPORATION OPERATING A BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY, WAS NOT THE... DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO TESTIFY WAS DEEMED A VIOLATION OF THE WRITTEN...