People v. Demerritt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Demerritt

113 A.D.2d 898, 493 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52522

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 113 A.D.2d 898 (People v. Demerritt) 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. Demerritt, 113 A.D.2d 898, 493 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Brown, J.), rendered August 4, 1981, convicting him of rape in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant’s claims that the trial court improperly precluded counsel from rebutting the prosecution’s evidence that the complainant, an avowed lesbian, had never engaged in sexual intercourse, and that the trial court’s charge was [899]*899improper, are without merit (see, People v Smith, 113 AD2d 905). In addition, neither the denial of the defendant’s motions for a severance (see, People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905) nor the time limitations imposed by the court on summations (here, one hour for each summation) (see, Herring v New York, 422 US 853, 862) constituted an abuse of discretion. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Rubin and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Brown, J.), rendered August 4, 1981, convicting him of rape in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant’s claims that the trial court improperly precluded counsel from rebutting the prosecution’s evidence that the complainant, an avowed lesbian, had never engaged in sexual intercourse, and that the trial court’s charge was [899]*899improper, are without merit (see, People v Smith, 113 AD2d 905). In addition, neither the denial of the defendant’s motions for a severance (see, People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905) nor the time limitations imposed by the court on summations (here, one hour for each summation) (see, Herring v New York, 422 US 853, 862) constituted an abuse of discretion. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Rubin and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.2d 898, 493 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-demerritt-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack