People v. Harding, 73 N.Y.2d 797 (1989)
When the prosecution fails to timely certify and file videotaped conditional examinations as required by CPL 660.60(2), the videotapes are admissible only if the prosecution demonstrates the integrity of the record, which can be satisfied by a defendant’s stipulation to the accuracy of the videotapes.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of stealing the life savings of elderly residents. The prosecution introduced videotaped conditional examinations of two elderly victims. The defendant objected, arguing the prosecution failed to comply with CPL 660.60(2)’s certification and filing requirements. The trial court allowed the prosecution to comply on the first day of trial and admitted the tapes. The Court of Appeals held that the prosecution’s delay violated the statute but the defendant’s stipulation to the accuracy of the videotapes cured the defect, thus allowing the admission of the evidence. This case highlights the importance of timely compliance with procedural rules while also illustrating how a stipulation can waive certain evidentiary objections.
Facts
The defendant and his wife operated a residence for the elderly and were charged with stealing the life savings of five residents between November 1986 and July 1988.
Due to the advanced age and ill health of three elderly victims, the People sought to conduct conditional examinations under CPL article 660.
The court granted the motion, and videotaped examinations of two victims were conducted on April 14 and October 5, 1989. One victim was too ill to testify.
The People sought to introduce the videotaped examinations at trial.
Procedural History
The defendant moved to preclude the videotapes because the People had not complied with CPL 660.60(2)’s certification and filing requirements.
The trial court permitted the People to satisfy the requirements on January 3, 1990, the first day of trial, and admitted the videotapes over the defendant’s objection.
The defendant then stipulated to the accuracy of the videotapes.
The defendant was convicted, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the People’s failure to certify and file the videotaped conditional examinations of witnesses in a timely manner, as required by CPL 660.60(2), renders the videotapes inadmissible at trial.
Holding
No, because while the People failed to satisfy the statutory requirements until the commencement of trial, the defendant’s stipulation to the accuracy of the videotapes satisfied the obligation to demonstrate the integrity of the record, and preclusion was properly denied.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that CPL 660.60(2) requires certification and filing of the videotape and stenographic transcript