From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rocco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 1991
170 A.D.2d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 19, 1991

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

In a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the complainant invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege (US Const 5th Amend) when questioned about criminal charges that were pending against him. The court found that the privilege was asserted on matters that were collateral to the charges against the defendant, and, over the defense counsel's objection, precluded cross-examination of the complainant on the pending criminal charges.

We find that this constitutes reversible error under the facts of this case. The invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination goes to the complainant's credibility (see, People v Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22), and the defense counsel should have been permitted to question the complainant in front of the jury about the pending charges (see, People v Thomas, 130 A.D.2d 692; People v Baldwin, 130 A.D.2d 666; cf., People v Parsons, 112 A.D.2d 250).

In view of our decision, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions. Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rocco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 1991
170 A.D.2d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Rocco

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ERNEST ROCCO, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 19, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
566 N.Y.S.2d 398

Citing Cases

People v. Siegel

This position is also consistent with other cases holding that a witness' obstruction of cross-examination is…