People v. Quinones, 57 N.Y.2d 270 (1982)

A party cannot claim error on appeal for evidentiary rulings unless a specific objection was made at trial, and a witness can be rehabilitated after an implicit claim of recent fabrication by introducing prior consistent statements.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, upholding the defendant’s conviction. The court held that the defendant’s objections to the admission of a taped conversation were insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. Further, it found no error in allowing a police agent to refresh her recollection with notes, nor in allowing the prosecutor to rehabilitate the agent after the defense implied recent fabrication. Finally, the court determined that the prosecution’s inability to produce a confidential informant did not warrant reversal, as the informant was not an eyewitness, and their unavailability was previously explained.

Facts

A police agent engaged in drug transactions with the defendant. During the trial, the prosecution introduced a taped conversation between the agent and the defendant. The agent also testified, using notes to refresh her recollection. The defense cross-examined the agent regarding omissions in her “buy reports.” A confidential informant, whose identity was known to the defendant, was unavailable to testify.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant’s objections to the admission of the taped conversation were sufficient to preserve a hearsay argument for appellate review.
2. Whether it was error to allow the police agent to refresh her recollection using notes.
3. Whether it was error to allow the prosecutor to rehabilitate the agent after the defense implied recent fabrication.
4. Whether the prosecution’s inability to produce a confidential informant warrants reversal of the conviction.

Holding

1. No, because the objections raised at trial were insufficient to preserve the hearsay argument for review.

2. No, because using notes to refresh a witness’s recollection is permissible, as long as the notes are not offered into evidence.

3. No, because when a party on cross examination implicitly asserts recent fabrication, the other party can rehabilitate the witness by eliciting testimony of prior consistent statements.

4. No, because the informant was not an eyewitness to the drug transaction, their identity was known to the defendant, and the unavailability was explained in a prior trial.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the defendant’s objections to the taped conversation at trial (that it was “self-serving” and “not in furtherance of any conspiracy”) did not preserve the argument that it was inadmissible hearsay. The court cited People v. Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720 in support of the proposition that specific objections are required to preserve issues for appellate review. The court further reasoned that it was permissible for the police agent to use her notes to refresh her recollection as long as the notes were not offered as evidence themselves.

Regarding the rehabilitation of the agent-witness, the Court found that the defendant’s cross-examination opened the door for the prosecution to elicit testimony that the agent had included the defendant’s name in an earlier “buy report”. The court stated that the defense attorney had “opened the door by interrogation as to the omission of defendant’s name from her ‘buy reports’ of October 31, and November 28, 1974.” This allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence showing consistency between her testimony and her earlier reports to rebut the implication of recent fabrication.

Finally, the Court reasoned that the absence of the confidential informant did not warrant reversal because the informant was not an eyewitness to the drug transactions, their identity was known to the defendant, and the unavailability had been explained at a prior trial. The court does not explicitly state what the explanation for the unavailability was, but this suggests that the prosecution made reasonable efforts to locate the informant.