85 N.Y.2d 359 (1995)

r
r

A witness’s Grand Jury testimony is admissible at trial if the witness is unavailable to testify due to the defendant’s misconduct, established by clear and convincing evidence.

r
r

Summary

r

Geraci was convicted of manslaughter and assault. A key witness, Terranova, who had testified against Geraci before the Grand Jury, later refused to testify at trial, claiming intimidation. The prosecution sought to admit Terranova’s Grand Jury testimony. The Court of Appeals held that such testimony is admissible if the witness’s unavailability is procured by the defendant’s misconduct, established by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to meet this standard, including the defendant’s motive, opportunity, and actions, as well as the witness’s own statements indicating intimidation by the defendant.

r
r

Facts

r

Following an argument at a nightclub, Anthony Granese was fatally stabbed. Peter Terranova identified Geraci as the stabber in Grand Jury testimony. Before trial, Terranova moved out of state and refused to testify, alleging intimidation. Terranova initially provided detailed statements to police and testified before the Grand Jury, identifying Geraci. Later, he claimed he hadn’t seen the stabbing. Terranova reported being shown his testimony and expressed fear for his safety and his family’s safety if he testified.

r
r

Procedural History

r

Geraci was indicted based on Terranova’s Grand Jury testimony. The prosecution held a Sirois hearing to determine the admissibility of Terranova’s Grand Jury testimony due to his unwillingness to testify. The trial court found Terranova practically unavailable due to pressures brought to bear and allowed the Grand Jury testimony. A jury convicted Geraci. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the