People v. Rosario
| Decision Date | 22 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | 1317,3424/05 |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 9507,892 N.Y.S.2d 338,68 A.D.3d 600 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANGEL ROSARIO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The trial court improperly admitted into evidence a prior consistent statement by the complainant, thereby allowing the impermissible bolstering of the complainant's testimony (see People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16 [1993]; People v McClean, 69 NY2d 426, 428 [1987]; People v Van Ness, 43 AD3d 553, 554-555 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 965 [2007]), an error that is especially prejudicial when the complainant's credibility is the linchpin of a conviction. The note that the complainant wrote approximately one year before she made the accusation to the police cannot satisfy the "prompt outcry" exception to the hearsay rule relied on by the trial court, in view of the months-long delay between the charged conduct and the writing of the note, especially in the absence of a sufficient explanation for the complainant's not confiding in someone else earlier (see People v Banks, 27 AD3d 953, 954-955 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 752 [2006]; People v Allen, 13 AD3d 892, 894-895 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 883 [2005]). According to the complainant's testimony, defendant's conduct ended around January or February 2004, whereas the note was written some time around May 2004, which latter date was confirmed by the more definitive testimony of the note's recipient, the complainant's boyfriend.
Nor can we conclude that the note was admissible as a proper rehabilitative response to a claim by the defense that the complainant's accusation was a recent fabrication (see McDaniel, 81 NY2d at 18; People v Davis, 44 NY2d 269, 277 [1978]). First, this exception allows the use of prior consistent statements to rehabilitate a witness when the defense asserts that the accusation was recently fabricated, since "it would be unjust to permit a party to suggest that a witness . . . is fabricating a story without allowing the opponent to demonstrate that the witness had spoken similarly even before the alleged incentive to falsify arose" (McDaniel, 81 NY2d at 18). Here, however, the prior consistent statement was not used to rehabilitate the complainant. It was offered on the People's direct case, indeed, in the course of the complainant's direct testimony, in anticipation of a defense of recent fabrication;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stone
...as prompt outcries, and the hearsay testimony regarding them should not have been admitted into evidence (see People v. Rosario, 68 A.D.3d 600, 601, 892 N.Y.S.2d 338 [2009], affd. 17 N.Y.3d 501, 934 N.Y.S.2d 59, 958 N.E.2d 93 [2011] ; People v. Workman, 56 A.D.3d 1155, 1157, 868 N.Y.S.2d 43......
-
Rosario v. Fischer, 11 Civ. 4617 (JPO) (FM)
...after a jury trial in Supreme Court, New York County, and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of fifteen years. People v. Rosario, 892 N.Y.S.2d 338, 339 (1st Dep't 2009), aff'd, 17 N.Y.3d 501, 515 (2011). On December 22, 2009, while Rosario was serving that sentence at Southport, a DOCCS ......
-
People v. Rosario
...especially in the absence of a sufficient explanation for the complainant's not confiding in someone else earlier” ( 68 A.D.3d 600, 601, 892 N.Y.S.2d 338 [1st Dept.2009] ). The court further concluded that the note was not admissible as a proper rehabilitative response to a defense claim of......
-
Table of cases
...778 N.Y.S.2d 517 (2d Dept. 2004), § 20:30 People v. Rosado, 45 A.D.3d 508, 846 N.Y.S.2d 165 (1st Dept. 2007), § 2:270 People v. Rosario , 68 A.D.3d 600, 892 N.Y.S.2d 338, aff’d 17 N.Y.3d 501, 934 N.Y.S.2d 59 (2011), § 6:50 People v. Rosario/People v. Parada , 17 N.Y.3d 501, 934 N.Y.S.2d 59 ......
-
Confusing, prejudicial, & cumulative
...to the jury how the abuse came to light. he testimony was suiciently non-speciic so as not to constitute bolstering. People v. Rosario , 68 A.D.3d 600, 892 N.Y.S.2d 338, af ’d 17 N.Y.3d 501, 934 N.Y.S.2d 59 (2011). It was error to admit complainant’s note to her boyfriend written one year b......
-
Confusing, prejudicial, & cumulative
...of the importance of the witness’s credibility in this case, we cannot conclude that the court’s error is harmless.” People v. Rosario , 68 A.D.3d 600, 892 N.Y.S.2d 338 (1st Dept. 2009) aff ’d , 17 N.Y.3d 501, 934 N.Y.S.2d 59 (2011). It was error to admit complainant’s note to her boyfriend......
-
Confusing, prejudicial, & cumulative
...to the jury how the abuse came to light. he testimony was suiciently non-speciic so as not to constitute bolstering. People v. Rosario , 68 A.D.3d 600, 892 N.Y.S.2d 338, af ’d 17 N.Y.3d 501, 934 N.Y.S.2d 59 (2011). It was error to admit complainant’s note to her boyfriend written one year b......