PEOPLE, IND. 1905/11 res, v. LAZARUS ROSEBORO, def-ap

4248. PEOPLE, IND. 1905/11 res, v. LAZARUS ROSEBORO, def-ap — Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Nicole Coviello of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered February 21, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of promoting prostitution in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4248. PEOPLE, IND. 1905/11 res, v. LAZARUS ROSEBORO, def-ap — Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Nicole Coviello of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered February 21, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of promoting prostitution in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to strike the testimony of the People’s main witness, a teenage girl whose prostitution defendant was charged with promoting. There was no substantial risk of prejudice to defendant from the witness’s invocation of her privilege against self-incrimination in response to questions on cross-examination regarding her continued prostitution activities after defendant’s arrest and her ability to post escort ads herself. Although defendant sought to explore these matters in order to show that the witness was a self-employed prostitute, and that defendant did not advance or profit from her prostitution, defendant was still able to present this aspect of his defense (see People v. Chin, 67 NY2d 22 [1986]; People v. Sims, 209 AD2d 192 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 1015 [1994]). Furthermore, defense counsel and the codefendant’s counsel were able to comment on the witness’s refusal to answer in their summations, and the court instructed the jury that it could draw an adverse inference from her invocation of the privilege. Thus, the court properly fashioned a less drastic alternative to striking her testimony (see People v. Vargas, 88 NY2d 363, 380 [1996]; People v. Visich, 57 AD3d 804, 806 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 763 [2009]).

PEOPLE, IND. 1905/11 res, v. LAZARUS ROSEBORO, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal