People v. Cardona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cardona

60 A.D.3d 493, 874 N.Y.S.2d 474

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 493 (People v. Cardona) 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. Cardona, 60 A.D.3d 493, 874 N.Y.S.2d 474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered August 8, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of rape in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 2Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence that, in an incident that occurred shortly before the charged rapes, defendant showed pornographic pictures to the 13-year-old victim. This evidence was properly admitted to demonstrate defendant’s pattern of increasingly serious sexual conduct toward the victim leading up to the charged crimes (see People v Rosario, 34 AD3d 370 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 949 [2007]). The evidence constituted highly probative background information that tended to explain the relationship between de[494]*494fendant and the victim and place the events in question in a believable context (see People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16 [2009]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments relating to this evidence.

The court’s Sandoval ruling, which permitted the People to elicit defendant’s prior sexual abuse conviction without mentioning any underlying facts, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]; People v Rosado, 53 AD3d 455 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 835 [2008]).

The court properly permitted the People to rebut a claim of recent fabrication by introducing a prior consistent statement made by the victim, since this statement predated a particular motive to falsify that had been asserted by the defense (see People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 18 [1993]; People v Whitley, 14 AD3d 403, 406 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 892 [2005]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered August 8, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of rape in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 2Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence that, in an incident that occurred shortly before the charged rapes, defendant showed pornographic pictures to the 13-year-old victim. This evidence was properly admitted to demonstrate defendant’s pattern of increasingly serious sexual conduct toward the victim leading up to the charged crimes (see People v Rosario, 34 AD3d 370 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 949 [2007]). The evidence constituted highly probative background information that tended to explain the relationship between de[494]*494fendant and the victim and place the events in question in a believable context (see People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16 [2009]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments relating to this evidence.

The court’s Sandoval ruling, which permitted the People to elicit defendant’s prior sexual abuse conviction without mentioning any underlying facts, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]; People v Rosado, 53 AD3d 455 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 835 [2008]).

The court properly permitted the People to rebut a claim of recent fabrication by introducing a prior consistent statement made by the victim, since this statement predated a particular motive to falsify that had been asserted by the defense (see People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 18 [1993]; People v Whitley, 14 AD3d 403, 406 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 892 [2005]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 493, 874 N.Y.S.2d 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cardona-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack