People v. De Jesus
| Decision Date | 24 March 1987 |
| Parties | , 507 N.E.2d 301 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Louis De JESUS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 118 A.D.2d 1050, 500 N.Y.S.2d 216, should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
Defendant's 11-year-old daughter accused him of having raped and sexually abused her for several years. At trial, defendant contended that these accusations were instigated by the child's mother, from whom he was separated, in order to gain custody of their four children. To support this argument, defense counsel sought to confront complainant with her account of the alleged sexual attacks to a social worker employed by the Bureau of Child Welfare (BCW), and he demanded that the People provide the defense with these prior relevant statements. The prosecutor objected on the grounds that the statements were "privileged information" and that they were protected by the Family Court Act. The prosecutor further asserted, "there is nothing I possess from BCW which is relevant for this trial." Defense counsel, in reply, claimed that he was "entitled to any prior statements that are made by a witness, that is applicable to the testimony that is being given by the particular witness before a Court." The trial court sustained the prosecutor's objection and denied defendant's request for the statements. Defendant was convicted of rape, sodomy and sexual abuse, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
"[O]nce a witness testifies for the People, the prosecutor is obligated to turn over to defense counsel the witness' prior statements relating to 'the subject matter of the witness' testimony' " (People v. Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154, 158, 490 N.Y.S.2d 747, 480 N.E.2d 361, quoting People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 289, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881). Here, defense counsel claimed he had the right to statements of the complainant made to BCW. The prosecutor at that point was obliged at least to specify any objection he may have had to furnishing the requested materials. The prosecutor now specifies two objections, but neither was made in the trial court and therefore neither is preserved for our review (CPL 470.35 [1] ). First, the prosecutor's reference to privilege and the Family Court Act were inadequate to invoke CPLR 4508 (see, Matter of Grattan v. People, 65 N.Y.2d 243, 246, 491 N.Y.S.2d 125, 480 N.E.2d 714). * Second, the prosecutor's claim that he possessed nothing relevant from BCW was insufficient to preserve his current contention that Rosario...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Enrique
...what he wanted to discuss, which is hardly sufficient to preserve defendant's present complaint. (See, people v. De Jesus, 69 N.Y.2d 855, 857, 514 N.Y.S.2d 708, 507 N.E.2d 301.) In any event, the claim is without merit. The privilege, which protects against disclosure of a "confidential com......
-
People v. Simonds
...and a new trial must be ordered. See People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 511 N.Y.S.2d 580, 503 N.E.2d 1011; People v. DeJesus, 69 N.Y.2d 855, 514 N.Y.S.2d 708, 507 N.E.2d 301. Accordingly, the appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (I. Warner, J.), rendered on July 1, 19......
-
People v. Washington
...determine whether the evidence is within the People's control. Illustrative of this point is our decision in People v. De Jesus, 69 N.Y.2d 855, 514 N.Y.S.2d 708, 507 N.E.2d 301. De Jesus involved an 11-year-old child's claim that her father had raped and sexually abused her. The defendant s......
-
People v. Quinones
...objection he may have to furnishing the materials requested and claimed by counsel to be Rosario material. People v. DeJesus, 69 N.Y.2d 855, 857, 514 N.Y.S.2d 708, 507 N.E.2d 301. Otherwise, the People waive any objection they may have had. Id. The People's failure to raise a timely objecti......