People v. Watt, 84 N.Y.2d 948 (1994)

In child sexual abuse cases, the reasonableness of the timeframe specified in an indictment depends on whether the prosecution acted diligently and whether the timeframe provides the defendant with reasonable notice to prepare a defense, considering all factual circumstances.

Summary

Defendant Watt was convicted of sexual offenses against children at his daycare center. The Appellate Division initially dismissed the indictment due to overly broad time intervals, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a per se rule was inappropriate and remanding for reconsideration under People v. Morris. On remand, the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding a five-month period reasonable for the indictment, considering the victim’s age, the ongoing nature of the abuse, and the defendant’s constant presence at the daycare center. The Court clarified that a defendant’s actions contributing to a lack of specificity don’t lighten the People’s burden, and foreign jurisdiction timelines are of limited relevance.

Facts

Defendant worked and lived at a day care center. He was accused of multiple counts of rape and sodomy against the infant N.B. between August 1, 1984, and December 31, 1984. The abuse occurred regularly at the daycare center. N.B. was eight years old at the time of the abuse, and the abuse was not reported until complaints arose from a three-year-old, leading to the defendant’s arrest the next day. The older children, including N.B., had been threatened by the defendant, told that their parents would be killed if they revealed the abuse.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of various criminal sexual acts. The Appellate Division dismissed the indictments, with leave to resubmit. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and remitted to the Appellate Division. On remand, the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a five-month timeframe in the indictment for child sexual abuse is excessively broad, thus depriving the defendant of adequate notice to prepare a defense.

2. Whether the trial court erred in determining that N.B. was a vulnerable witness and could testify via two-way closed-circuit television without holding a hearing.

Holding

1. No, because considering the circumstances, a five-month period was reasonable for the defendant to address in preparing his defense.

2. No, because the defendant’s objection regarding a hearing was unpreserved, and the court’s vulnerability finding was supported by its observation of the infant, along with testimony and reports from a social worker.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the five-month timeframe was reasonable considering the circumstances. The court emphasized that the relevant inquiries under People v. Morris are whether the People acted diligently and whether the indictment, as particularized, provided reasonable notice to the defendant. The Court noted several key facts: the indictment charged the defendant with 10 criminal acts involving N.B. over the five-month period, the abuse of N.B. ended in December 1984, the defendant’s unlawful conduct continued with respect to other children until his arrest in May 1985, the first indictment was handed down two and a half months after the arrest, and the complainant, N.B., was unable to further particularize the offenses due to her age, the daily routine of the abuse, and the resulting trauma. The fact that the defendant lived and worked at the day care center, making alibi defenses less meaningful, also supported the court’s conclusion.

The court clarified that while the Appellate Division mentioned the defendant’s threats to the children as a factor in their delayed reporting, this did not lighten the People’s burden to provide reasonable notice. The court further noted that while decisions from other jurisdictions could be considered, their timeframes have limited relevance in New York cases. Regarding the vulnerable witness determination, the court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a missing hearing and that sufficient evidence supported the court’s finding of vulnerability. The court found no merit in the defendant’s remaining contentions.