EDWARDS, JOSEPH, PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 23, 2011
DocketKA 07-02437
StatusPublished

This text of EDWARDS, JOSEPH, PEOPLE v (EDWARDS, JOSEPH, PEOPLE v) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
EDWARDS, JOSEPH, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1421 KA 07-02437 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, GREEN, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH EDWARDS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (WILLIAM G. PIXLEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered November 9, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [2]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant’s objection to the testimony of the victim’s half-sister on the ground that it was speculative and irrelevant did not preserve for our review his present contentions that such testimony improperly bolstered the victim’s credibility (see People v Valentine, 48 AD3d 1268, 1268-1269, lv denied 10 NY3d 871), and exceeded the scope of the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Stearns, 72 AD3d 1214, 1218, lv denied 15 NY3d 778). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Bleakley
508 N.E.2d 672 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
People v. Valentine
48 A.D.3d 1268 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Stearns
72 A.D.3d 1214 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
EDWARDS, JOSEPH, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-joseph-people-v-nyappdiv-2011.