People v. Caldarola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caldarola

288 A.D.2d 234, 732 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10471

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 234 (People v. Caldarola) 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

People v. Caldarola, 288 A.D.2d 234, 732 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.), rendered July 14, 1998, convicting him of rape in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, five instances of prior bad acts toward the complainant were admissible to complete the narration and to demonstrate the intentional use of force, thereby contradicting the defendant’s claim of consensual sex (see, People v Howard, 285 AD2d 560; People v Cook, 251 AD2d 1033, affd 93 NY2d 840; People v Shorey, 172 AD2d 634, 635). In addition, the court providently exercised its discretion in weighing the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect (see, People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 55; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242; People v Carver, 183 AD2d 907; People v Thompson, 158 AD2d 563).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.), rendered July 14, 1998, convicting him of rape in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, five instances of prior bad acts toward the complainant were admissible to complete the narration and to demonstrate the intentional use of force, thereby contradicting the defendant’s claim of consensual sex (see, People v Howard, 285 AD2d 560; People v Cook, 251 AD2d 1033, affd 93 NY2d 840; People v Shorey, 172 AD2d 634, 635). In addition, the court providently exercised its discretion in weighing the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect (see, People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 55; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242; People v Carver, 183 AD2d 907; People v Thompson, 158 AD2d 563).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 234, 732 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caldarola-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack