Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

People v. Henry

179 A.D.2d 1061

Type: Opinion
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction: New York
Date: 1992-01-31
Topic: litigation

The trial court properly denied the prosecutor’s offer to admit into evidence three letters written by the complainant. Moreover, the contents of the letters were not disclosed to the jury. It was only after defendant’s attorney cross-examined complainant about the contents of the letters that the prosecutor, on redirect, elicited testimony as to their subject matter. Thus, defendant’s cross-examination of the complainant opened the door to that line of questioning (see, People v Thomas, 174 AD2d 447, 448). Defendant concedes that the 15 day time period set forth in *1062the first two counts of the indictment is not facially unreasonable (see, People v Keindl, 68 NY2d 410, 417, rearg denied 69 NY2d 823; People v Piasta, 136 AD2d 887, lv denied 71 NY2d 1031).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Henry. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 5 opinions

PEOPLE v. HENRY,179 A.D.2d 1061[4th Dept 1992]

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN L. HENRY,

Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department.

January 31, 1992

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Marks, J.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law §130.50[3]) for engaging in deviate sexual intercourse with his girlfriend's nine-year old daughter. We reject defendant's contention that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him by precluding his attorney from cross-examining the infant complainant about her alleged motive for falsely accusing defendant. After hearing the offer of proof outside the presence of the jury and the complainant's negative responses to the questions, the trial court ruled that the testimony was not relevant and precluded defense counsel from pursuing that line of questioning. We cannot agree that the proposed line of inquiry was not relevant. It would have been better practice to have permitted such interrogation. However, in the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the error was harmless and did not prejudice defendant or deny him a fair trial.

The trial court properly denied the prosecutor's offer to admit into evidence three letters written by the complainant. Moreover, the contents of the letters were not disclosed to the jury. It was only after defendant's attorney cross-examined complainant about the contents of the letters that the prosecutor, on redirect, elicited testimony as to their subject matter. Thus, defendant's cross-examination of the complainant opened the door to that line of questioning(see, People v. Thomas,174 A.D.2d 447,448).

Defendant concedes that the 15 day time period set forth inPage 1062the first two counts of the indictment is not facially unreasonable(see, People v. Keindl,68 N.Y.2d 410,417,reargdenied69 N.Y.2d 823;People v. Piasta,136 A.D.2d 887,lv denied71 N.Y.2d 1031). Defendant was not prejudiced as a result of the prosecutor's failure to disclose prior to trial that the proof would be limited to a period of time less than that specified in the indictment(see, People v. Kulzer,155 A.D.2d 882,lv denied75 N.Y.2d 869).

We have reviewed defendant's other arguments and conclude that they have no merit. Evidence of flight has long been recognized as warranting an inference of a guilty conscience(see, People vYazum,13 N.Y.2d 302,rearg denied15 N.Y.2d 679) and the court gave the jury appropriate instructions about the weight they should give such evidence.

Present — Denman, P.J., Callahan, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.