People v. Bobadilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department · Evidence

EvidenceGrand Jury testimonydelayed disclosuresanctionssubstantial prejudicewitness recallcross-examinationjury note

Facts

During trial, the People delayed turning over the complainant's Grand Jury testimony. As a sanction, the trial court permitted the defendant to recall the complainant for further cross-examination and barred any redirect examination. Later, while a readback was being prepared in response to a jury note, the jury continued deliberating and then sent out a second note stating that it had reached a verdict. Before taking the verdict, the court offered the jury the opportunity to hear the requested testimony, but the jury declined.

Issue

Whether the People's delayed disclosure of the complainant's Grand Jury testimony required dismissal rather than the lesser sanction imposed by the trial court, and whether the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the jury to continue deliberating while a readback was being prepared.

Rule

When the People delay turning over a complainant's Grand Jury testimony, dismissal is not warranted unless the delay substantially prejudices the defendant; a proper sanction may be to allow the defendant to recall the witness for further cross-examination without redirect. A challenge to the trial court's procedure in allowing jury deliberations to continue while a readback is being prepared is unpreserved for appellate review if the defendant did not object, and reversal is not warranted where the jury is given the opportunity to hear the requested testimony before the verdict is taken and declines that opportunity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a robbery trial in Brooklyn, the prosecutor did not turn over complainant Elena Cruz's Grand Jury testimony until after she had completed her direct testimony and initial cross-examination. The trial judge allowed defense counsel to recall Cruz the next morning for additional cross-examination and barred the prosecutor from conducting any redirect.

Defense counsel moves to dismiss the indictment solely because of the delayed disclosure. What is the strongest basis for denying the motion?

Explanation. The governing rule is that delayed disclosure of a complainant's Grand Jury testimony does not require dismissal unless the delay substantially prejudices the defendant. The majority approved a lesser sanction allowing recall of the witness for further cross-examination without any redirect, which adequately mitigates the delay where no substantial prejudice is shown. (Derived from People v. Bobadilla (n.d.).)