From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 1993
193 A.D.2d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

May 3, 1993

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant argues that he was denied a fair trial when the court precluded him from eliciting certain prior consistent statements made by a defense witness, Luis Ramirez, who was a codefendant and a friend of the defendant. The defendant contends that the defense witness's testimony was attacked on cross-examination as a recent fabrication, and therefore the prior statement should have been received. Generally, the testimony of a witness may not be corroborated or bolstered by evidence of prior consistent statements made before trial (see, People v McClean, 69 N.Y.2d 426, 428). However, such statements are admissible if upon cross-examination a witness's testimony is assailed as a recent fabrication and as long as the prior consistent statements are made before the motive to fabricate arose (People v McDaniel, 81 N.Y.2d 210). At bar, the exception does not apply, because the codefendant's motive to favor his friend was the same when he made his prior consistent statement as it was at trial (see, People v White, 57 A.D.2d 669).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 1993
193 A.D.2d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Perez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAYMOND PEREZ…

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

Date published: May 3, 1993

Citations

193 A.D.2d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
597 N.Y.S.2d 445

Citing Cases

People v. Sipley

We further conclude that County Court did not err in denying defendant use of a prior consistent statement by…