From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1992
181 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

March 9, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During the selection of the jury in the defendant's trial, the complaining witness was transported from Rikers Island to the courthouse on the same bus as the defendant. Before trial, the defense counsel sought a ruling on the admissibility of a statement by the complaining witness to counsel which exculpated the defendant. In response, the prosecutor contended that the witness had been threatened or intimidated during the bus ride to prevent him from testifying. Before ruling on the admissibility of the witness's statement and the circumstances under which it was made, the trial court offered to conduct an in camera interview of the witness, on the record, and outside of the presence of the defendant, the defense counsel, and the prosecutor. The defense counsel agreed to this procedure. On the next day of jury selection, the court read the entire transcript of the interview into the record and held that the statement would be admissible at the trial, since it was voluntarily given by the witness, but that the prosecutor could, in turn, question the witness as to circumstances surrounding the statement.

Under these circumstances, we find from the defense counsel's failure to object to the defendant's absence from the interview that it is apparent that defense counsel did not believe that the in camera inquiry of the complaining witness prejudiced the defendant's defense (cf., People v Turaine, 78 N.Y.2d 871; see, People v Reed, 168 A.D.2d 645, 646). Moreover, since the transcript of the proceeding was available to the defense before trial, the defendant's absence did not have substantial effect on his ability to defend (see, People v Rodriguez, 76 N.Y.2d 918; see, People v Floyd, 179 A.D.2d 770; People v Dokes, 173 A.D.2d 724, lv granted 78 N.Y.2d 1075; People v Jordan, 174 A.D.2d 490; cf., People v Turaine, supra).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Harrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1992
181 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Harrison

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TONY HARRISON…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
581 N.Y.S.2d 232

Citing Cases

State of N.Y. v. Zuran

It was only at this point, when it became clear that the witness was still reluctant to testify because of…

People v. Ross

The defendant contends that he was deprived of due process of law because he was not present at an in camera…