People v. Ruiz
| Decision Date | 10 July 1979 |
| Citation | 71 A.D.2d 569,418 N.Y.S.2d 402 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nilio RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
A. H. Saperstein, New York City, for respondent.
D. E. Gilbert, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before FEIN, J. P., and LANE, LUPIANO and BLOOM, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered November 4, 1977, after a jury trial, convicting the defendant of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree, reversed on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter remanded for a new trial.
The defendant was indicted for the crimes of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree performed on "Wanda," the 12-year-old daughter of defendant's "common-law" wife on the evening of November 18, 1976.
Wanda, the victim, was the main prosecution witness at the trial. She testified that the defendant had come into her room, put her sister Celia on the floor on her knees, facing away from the door, took the victim to his room while holding one hand on her mouth, and in the room he raped and sodomized her. As defendant carried the complaining witness through the apartment, she noticed her mother on the floor, apparently drunk.
Wanda did not complain to anyone about the occurrence until three days later, on November 21, 1976. Testimony regarding the medical examination held on November 21 disclosed that a laceration was present which was inconclusive on the issue of whether intercourse took place.
The testimony of the 12-year-old was remarkable in that many questions asked on cross-examination were met with either no response at all or the response "I don't know." These questions were not peripheral, but rather were directed at when the victim first complained about the rape, with whom she discussed the rape, and what she observed at the time of the occurrence. This unresponsiveness must be coupled with another consideration.
Defense counsel made an offer of proof to the court in order to allow cross-examination of the complainant regarding acts of sexual intercourse between the complainant and one Garcia (CPL 60.42(5)). The mother of the complainant allegedly also had intercourse with Garcia. The court foreclosed examination in this regard. It was urged by defense counsel that this testimony would establish that the complainant's description of sexual intercourse was not that of an innocent who only had this one experience. Her testimony describing the intercourse would therefore be less credible, since the jury could infer that she was drawing on her other sexual experience to describe what occurred. Furthermore, the intercourse of the mother with Garcia was necessary to explain the three-day hiatus in reporting to the police. Defendant's argument would have been that he had a dispute with Wanda's mother about her sexual activities with Garcia. The mother had Wanda press charges in retaliation for that quarrel.
The sparseness of Wanda's testimony, coupled with the barring of the proof offered by defendant, warrants reversal and remand for a new trial in the interest of justice.
All concur except FEIN, Justice, who dissents in a memorandum, as follows:
The majority concludes that the trial justice erred in precluding cross-examination of the complainant regarding alleged acts of sexual intercourse between the complainant and a 14 year old boy named Garcia and alleged intercourse between Garcia and complainant's mother. I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Budis
... ... , 508 A.2d 1059, 1062 (1986) (due process requires admission of prior sexual experience of youthful victim to show knowledge of sexual acts); People v. Ruiz, 71 A.D.2d 569, 570, 418 N.Y.S.2d 402, 403 (1979) (prior sexual experience of victim admissible to show ability to describe acts of sexual ... ...
-
Grant v. Demskie
... ... Is a seven-year old capable of making a lie up and keeping it consistent for three years? Told so many times to so many different people? Is that possible? Especially, ladies and gentlemen, when she has no reason to make this up. She has benefitted zero. She has lost a lot ... Here, the State concedes that the prior acts occurred and that they closely resemble those allegedly committed by defendant."); People v. Ruiz, 71 A.D.2d 569, 570, 418 N.Y.S.2d 402, 403 (1st Dep't 1979); In re Michael, 119 Ohio App.3d 112, 694 N.E.2d 538, 544-45 (1997) ("the average ... ...
-
State v. Erick L.
...that the victims could only describe the molestation because [the defendant] had, in fact, molested them”); but see People v. Ruiz , 71 A.D.2d 569, 570, 418 N.Y.S.2d 402 (1979) (seemingly accepting argument that evidence of twelve year old victim's prior sexual conduct was admissible to sho......
-
State v. Budis
... ... Like results were reached in Summitt v. State, 101 Nev. 159, 697 P.2d 1374 (1985) and People v. Ruiz, 71 A.D.2d 569, 418 N.Y.S.2d 402 (App.Div.1979). See also State v. Jacques, where the Maine Supreme Court opined that: ... ...