People v. Wisdom

• Decision Date: 05 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. 107.,107.
• Citation: 12 N.E.3d 1107,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04040,989 N.Y.S.2d 678,23 N.Y.3d 970
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Sidney WISDOM, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

23 N.Y.3d 970
12 N.E.3d 1107
989 N.Y.S.2d 678
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04040

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant
v.
Sidney WISDOM, Respondent.

No. 107.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 5, 2014.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Ann Bordley and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (De Nice Powell of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM .

12 N.E.3d 1107

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the judgment of conviction reinstated, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts and issues raised but not determined on appeal to that court.

Defendant Sidney Wisdom attempted to kill a four-year-old girl and her grandmother (whom we refer to as Jane) during a residential burglary. Due to the severity

of Jane's injuries, the People obtained a court order to videotape her testimony for later presentation to a grand jury. In her recorded interview, Jane unequivocally

12 N.E.3d 1108

identified defendant as the assailant and stated that she knew him from prior contacts. However, she was

not administered an oath to tell the truth, an oversight that was not realized by the prosecutor until after the grand jury had viewed the video. In an attempt to rectify this omission, the court authorized a second recorded examination in which Jane swore to be truthful and declared that her prior testimony had been accurate. The grand jury was shown the second video and defendant was indicted for various crimes, including first-degree burglary and attempted second-degree murder.

Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that Jane's failure to take the required oath during her original interview compromised the integrity of the grand jury. Supreme Court rejected that argument and a jury convicted defendant of attempting to intentionally murder Jane and the child. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the grand jury proceeding was defective because the People presented Jane's unsworn recorded testimony and the second videotaped...