From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Marshall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 23, 1995
220 A.D.2d 692 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 23, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of the gunpoint robbery of two persons. On appeal, he argues that the People were erroneously permitted to impeach one of their own witnesses with a prior signed written statement in violation of CPL 60.35 (1). He further argues that the error was compounded when the court failed to give limiting instructions to the jury concerning the evidentiary value of the statement. We disagree.

The party who calls a witness "certifies his [or her] credibility" (People v. Sexton, 187 N.Y. 495, 509). However, when a witness is unwilling or reluctant to testify, he or she may be declared "hostile" by the court and be questioned by the party who called him or her by use of, inter alia, leading questions (see, People v. Sexton, supra), although, pursuant to CPL 60.35, a witness in a criminal trial may not be impeached by the party who called him or her through the use of a signed written or sworn oral statement unless the witness's testimony at trial "affirmatively" damages that party's case (see, People v Fitzpatrick, 40 N.Y.2d 44; People v. Andre, 185 A.D.2d 276). Here, the subject witness, who was testifying for the People pursuant to a subpoena, was properly declared "hostile" by the court when her testimony at trial diverged from her signed written statement. However, because her trial testimony did not "affirmatively" damage the People's case, they would not have been permitted to impeach her by use of the statement (see, People v. Pellot, 186 A.D.2d 158). In fact, the People did not use the statement to impeach the witness since she essentially adopted the content of the statement by her trial testimony. Thus, the witness's signed written statement was used merely to lead her, not to impeach her, and the defendant was not prejudiced thereby (see, People v. Bracy, 174 A.D.2d 527; People v. Ramirez, 66 A.D.2d 902). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Marshall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 23, 1995
220 A.D.2d 692 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SHALIK MARSHALL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 23, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 692 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 653

Citing Cases

People v. West

On this appeal from his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, defendant raises a number of issues…

People v. Sebastian Delamota

Additionally, contrary to the defendant's contention, the complainant's testimony was not incredible as a…