People v. Rosario
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Read, J.
The issue for us to decide in these two cases is whether prior consistent statements alleging sexual abuse were properly admitted under the prompt outcry rule or, alternatively in the Rosario case, to rebut a claim of recent fabrication. In both appeals, we affirm the Appellate Division, which concluded that the prior consistent statement was inadmissible in Rosario, and admissible in Parada.
I
Rosario
Complainant, who was 16 at the time of trial, testified that her father, defendant Angel Rosario, began to abuse her sexually when she was about nine years old. Over…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited16 opinions
- People v. McDanielNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Commonwealth v. KingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005
- People v. SpicolaNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
- People v. MassieNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- People v. RiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- The People v. Nirun HonghirunNew York Court of Appeals · 2017
- The People v. Daniel A. LudwigNew York Court of Appeals · 2014
- The People v. Gordon GrossNew York Court of Appeals · 2016
- People v. LapiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. GertzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.