Legal Opinion

The People v. Daniel A. Ludwig

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 23, 2014No. 166PublishedCited by 76 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Read, J.

In this child sexual abuse case, County Court permitted the People to elicit testimony about complainant’s prior consistent statements disclosing the abuse, and precluded defendant’s mother from testifying about a prior allegedly inconsistent statement made by complainant. We conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he made these evidentiary rulings. The challenged testimony was admissible for the nonhearsay purpose of explaining to the jury how and when the sexual abuse came to light, resulting in an investigation and defendant’s eventual…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. McDanielNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. People v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. People v. RosarioNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. People v. GregoryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  5. People v. RosarioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012

3Cited by76 opinions

  1. The People v. Nirun HonghirunNew York Court of Appeals · 2017
  2. The People v. Gordon GrossNew York Court of Appeals · 2016
  3. The People v. William CullenNew York Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. People v. RoseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
  5. People v. TaylorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015

71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API