Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roberto ROSARIO, a/k/a Pascal Concepcion, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered June 4, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, 5 to 15 years, and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding introduction of a police report alleged to contain a prior inconsistent statement of a witness. Upon our examination of the record, we conclude that there was no inconsistency because the witness's reference to a conversation with another person about the identity of the perpetrator did not imply that the witness lacked personal knowledge of such identity. Accordingly, the report was lacking in probative value (see, People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 80-81, 412 N.Y.S.2d 833, 385 N.E.2d 572). Moreover, defendant failed to lay a sufficiently clear foundation for admission of the report (id.; People v. Robles, 234 A.D.2d 95, 651 N.Y.S.2d 438, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1099, 660 N.Y.S.2d 393, 682 N.E.2d 994). In any event, defendant suffered no prejudice by the exclusion of the report since the contents thereof, including the alleged inconsistency, were presented to the jury by defense counsel through the questioning of the witness (see, People v. Robles, supra, 234 A.D.2d, at 96, 651 N.Y.S.2d 438). Furthermore, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel's belated request for a continuance to secure the attendance of police witnesses for the purpose of developing the same illusory inconsistency (see, People v. Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473, 476, 346 N.Y.S.2d 245, 299 N.E.2d 664). In any event, were we to find that any of the court's rulings challenged on appeal were erroneous, we would find the error to be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt and the lack of probative value of the purported inconsistency.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 09, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)