People v. Lapi
105 AD3d 1084, 962 N.Y.S.2d 768 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defense counsel's failure to object to evidence does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if the evidence is admissible, such as a child victim's sworn testimony after a proper competency inquiry or testimony admissible under the flexible 'prompt outcry' rule.
Facts:
- Over a weekend in July 2009, defendant was with his four-year-old relative.
- During that weekend, defendant engaged in anal sexual conduct with the child on two separate occasions.
- The child returned to his mother's care on a Sunday.
- The following Friday, the child disclosed the sexual conduct to his mother.
- The victim's mother contacted child protective services.
- Police subsequently interviewed defendant.
- Defendant gave two statements to police, and in the second statement, he confessed to the alleged conduct.
- At trial, defendant recanted his confession, testifying that it was coerced and that no sexual contact occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged by indictment in the County Court of Montgomery County with two counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.
- Following a jury trial in the County Court, Defendant was convicted on all charges.
- The County Court sentenced Defendant, as a second child sexual assault felony offender, to 15 years in prison and 15 years of postrelease supervision.
- Defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defense counsel's failure to object to a six-year-old victim's sworn testimony and the admission of testimony under the 'prompt outcry' rule constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial court's underlying evidentiary rulings were not in error?
Opinions:
Majority - Stein, J.
No. The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. To establish an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must show that counsel failed to provide meaningful representation and that there was an 'absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations' for the deficient conduct. Here, counsel's failure to object to the six-year-old victim giving sworn testimony was not deficient because the trial court conducted a proper inquiry and correctly determined the child understood the nature of an oath. Similarly, counsel's failure to object to the mother's testimony about the victim's disclosure was not ineffective because the testimony was admissible under the 'prompt outcry' rule. The court found that the victim's five-day delay in reporting was 'prompt' considering his young age and the familial relationship with the defendant. Although counsel made some errors, he provided meaningful representation by securing a favorable Sandoval compromise, conducting targeted cross-examinations, and presenting a coherent defense theory.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for proving ineffective assistance of counsel under New York law, which focuses on the totality of the representation rather than isolated errors. It demonstrates that an attorney's failure to make an objection that would have been meritless cannot form the basis of an ineffective assistance claim. The case also provides a key application of the 'prompt outcry' rule's flexibility, affirming that the determination of 'promptness' is a fact-sensitive inquiry that must account for a victim's age and relationship to the perpetrator.
