People v. Tas
| Decision Date | 13 November 1980 |
| Citation | 415 N.E.2d 967,51 N.Y.2d 915,434 N.Y.S.2d 978 |
| Parties | , 415 N.E.2d 967 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Fordin TAS, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lorenzo JONES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The orders of the Appellate Division, People v. Tas, 416 N.Y.S.2d 765; People v. Jones, 69 A.D.2d 912, 415 N.Y.S.2d 124, should be affirmed.
The trial court was correct in denying defendants' motion to preclude evidence relating to the victim's identification of the defendants as his assailants on the ground that the People had failed to give notice to defense counsel prior to its use. (See CPL 710.30.) As the Appellate Division noted, the victim and the defendants were inmates in the same tier of cells for a period prior to the attack of at least one month and, although the victim may not have known their particular names, he was familiar with the defendants as individuals. Since the participants in the incident the victim and the perpetrators were known to each other, there was no "identification" within the meaning of CPL 710.30 (People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924) and no prior notice need have been given by the People.
It was also proper for the trial court, under the circumstances present here, to admit evidence of a previous assault by defendants against another prisoner as to the issue of consent by the complaining witness and force used against him. By raising the question whether the complainant consented to the acts of sodomy, the defense put in issue the aspect of force as an element of the crime charged. (See Penal Law, § 130.50.) In establishing lack of consent, the People properly could introduce evidence which was probative of the victim's state of mind at the time of the attack. (See People v. Yannucci, 283 N.Y. 546, 549-550, 29 N.E.2d 185; cf. People v. Miller, 39 N.Y.2d 543, 384 N.Y.S.2d 741, 349 N.E.2d 841; see, generally, People v. Santarelli, 49 N.Y.2d 241, 425 N.Y.S.2d 77, 401 N.E.2d 199; Richardson, Evidence (10th ed.), § 170.) Testimony concerning the prior assault on another prisoner in the victim's presence which occurred just minutes before the attack on the victim and was participated in by both defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Greene
...have lived together for a time. 583 N.Y.S.2d 814, 593 N.E.2d at 272 (emphasis supplied; citations omitted).In People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915, 434 N.Y.S.2d 978, 415 N.E.2d 967 (1980), the New York Court of Appeals applied the exception in a case where the suspect and the identifying witness ha......
-
People v. Harris
...Martinez, 253 A.D.2d at 775–776, 677 N.Y.S.2d 592;People v. Pascullo, 120 A.D.2d at 689, 502 N.Y.S.2d 275;cf. People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915, 916, 434 N.Y.S.2d 978, 415 N.E.2d 967). Indeed, any generalized fear experienced by the complainants that was unattributable to the defendant was not r......
-
People v. Harrell
...Artis' testimony and finds that she was able to identify the defendants from her prior observations of them. People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915, 434 N.Y.S.2d 978, 415 N.E.2d 967 (1980); People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d Brown did not testify and this Court makes ......
-
People v. Watson
...establishing the elements of forcible compulsion (see, Penal Law § 130.00 [8]; § 130.35 [1]; § 130.50 [1]; § 130.65 [1]; see also, People v Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915) and intent (see, Penal Law § 15.05 [1]; § 120.00 [1]; § 130.00 [3]; §§ 130.55, 130.65 [1]; § 130.60 [2]; § 215.50 [3]; see also, Pe......