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. Robert TRINIDAD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered February 16, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2 years, unanimously affirmed.
The prosecutor cross-examined a defense witness about his failure to mention his exculpatory version of the incident to other civilians at the scene who were accusing defendant of misconduct. Defendant's claim that this impeachment required the prosecutor to lay a foundation pursuant to People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 428 N.Y.S.2d 914, 406 N.E.2d 771 [1980] is unpreserved (see People v. Miller, 89 N.Y.2d 1077, 659 N.Y.S.2d 837, 681 N.E.2d 1283 [1997] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Dawson concerns the impeachment of witnesses by their failure to report exculpatory alibi information to law enforcement authorities, and there is nothing in Dawson or its rationale to suggest that it should be applied to a witness's contacts with other civilians. To the extent defendant is arguing that the cross-examination of this witness or the prosecutor's summation asserted that the witness subsequently failed to bring his exculpatory information to the attention of law enforcement, defendant's claims are unsupported by the record.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments, including those related to the court's jury charge.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 02, 2008
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)