People v. Houk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Houk

225 A.D.2d 1085, 639 N.Y.S.2d 197

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 1085 (People v. Houk) 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. Houk, 225 A.D.2d 1085, 639 N.Y.S.2d 197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court erred in permitting a prosecution witness to bolster the trial testimony of the infant complainant, whom defendant was found to have raped and sodomized. The witness testified that the complainant, her daughter, had typed a message on their home computer, which stated, "I have been sexualy [sic] abused.” Defendant failed to object to the mother’s testimony regarding the computer message, and, thus, the issue is unpreserved for appeal (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Smith, 219 AD2d 794, lv denied 86 NY2d 875), and we decline to review the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J. — Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court erred in permitting a prosecution witness to bolster the trial testimony of the infant complainant, whom defendant was found to have raped and sodomized. The witness testified that the complainant, her daughter, had typed a message on their home computer, which stated, "I have been sexualy [sic] abused.” Defendant failed to object to the mother’s testimony regarding the computer message, and, thus, the issue is unpreserved for appeal (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Smith, 219 AD2d 794, lv denied 86 NY2d 875), and we decline to review the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J. — Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 1085, 639 N.Y.S.2d 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-houk-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack